MY TURN-I woke up in the middle of the night and thought I was having a bad dream. It took me a few seconds to realize that Donald Trump had been elected the next President of the United States.

So, I pulled the covers over my head and decided to stay in bed for the next four years. 

That lasted till about 8:00 a.m. when I gingerly checked my cell phone, not knowing what other news I was going to receive. My youngest granddaughter, who just turned eleven, had sent me a text (that is how we communicate with this generation) which said, "How are you doing? I am in shock because he has not only been so mean to so many girls that he has already hurt this country. Let's talk more after school?” 

Before I got the chance to call she sent another text later saying, “He is not only rude to women but took away a chance from someone else who actually cares about this country. Best of luck America!" 

I will explain to her that he didn't take away the chance from Hillary Clinton ... the American people voted to have him as our next President. Later on, I received a text from my eldest granddaughter who is a freshman at University in Arizona. It said, "Hi Gram! A bit scared for our country honestly!!! How are you feeling?” 

As the resident politico in the family I am the source of all political information. (At least I have managed to make them believe it.) I was delighted they asked me how I was feeling! This situation occurred all over the country. Many parents and grandparents were in the difficult position of trying to calm fears. 

Wednesday morning I went to my class on Current Events. I find it helpful to see how other people think about issues of the day. If there were any Trump supporters in the room, they were very quiet.   The hundred or more sitting there reminded me of attending a wake without the refreshments. 

I learned that the President and Vice President can't be sued while in office. That means Trump's two trials scheduled for November and December can't be continued. If they are, they will have to wait four years...or maybe eight.

I also learned that if the Republicans and Trump keep their promise about seeking a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, President Obama can issue a certain kind of pardon before he leaves office. It doesn't mean she has to admit guilt. It will stop those congressional witch hunters from continuing their thirty-year battle with the former Secretary. 

After watching the analysis practically all day, I'm not going to talk about the mechanics of the election. You all must be saturated by it as well. I would like to discuss some of the ramifications of the "First 100 days of the Donald Trump Presidency," especially the international trade part.

We cannot manufacture products for all of our needs. That is the reason we have a global economy. As an example, making a men’s white shirt in the United States would probably cost $40. This means the people making the shirts couldn't afford to buy them. By the time the apparel manufacturer buys American textiles and trim, equipment, and pays a decent wage and benefits, it becomes too expensive. 

That is why thousands of men’s shirts are available for $12.99. We are able to buy something in our budget and we have enabled people in another country to be able to buy necessities. 

How many of you buy clothes because of where they are made? Other than certain items which can be almost completely automated or hand made for the couture fashion labels, we need to manufacture our clothing in another country. 

On the other hand, the United States is a huge exporter of all kinds of products. We are the largest or almost largest agricultural exporters in the world. Our exports provide millions of jobs for Americans. Here’s just a few statistics on our Import/export trade in 2015: 

Overall imports to the U.S. in 2015:     2.307 Trillion Dollars 

Overall exports from the U.S. 2015:     1.504 Trillion Dollars 

U.S. exports to Mexico in 2015:            236.4 Billion dollars or 15.7% of all our exports 

Mexican Exports to U.S 2015:               297.5 Billion dollars or 12.9% of all our imports 

U.S. Exports to China 2015:                  116.2 Billion or 7.7% of total exports 

Chinese Exports to U.S 2015:                02.7 Billion dollars or 21.8 of U.S total imports 

This is apart from the billions of dollars invested in American Real Estate and Manufactured Products from both countries. 

There is no way that Trump can bring the manufacturing industries back to the rust belt. We have to make the things we do best at a price both American consumers and those in other countries can afford. 

We benefitted from the products made in the Industrial Revolution, but progressed to other industries. We developed some of the finest technology in the world. Manufacturing jobs now and in the future will be so automated that they will need one or two people as opposed to fifty. Why do we no longer manufacture "buggy whips"? Maybe because horse and buggies are not our main mode of transportation. Then again, they may be quicker on the 405 in the morning. 

Last night, as the election returns were coming in, my daughter was at an international meeting of CEO's and top executives taking place in Shanghai. There were around fifty different countries represented, all in the trade exposition industry. They were, as she said, "freaking out.” Since the U.S. election was not a big priority on Chinese TV, I was texting the results as they came in. These fifty countries were afraid of trade wars. 

The only comments from Chinese TV were that Trump was an unknown but they didn't expect any affect on their money, the yuan. 

It is rather ironic that so many other countries are so much more knowledgeable and interested in the United States than we are in the outside world. 

Maybe he can accomplish some good things with a Republican Congress. Infrastructure has been on the table but inactive for the last four years. 

We are waiting nervously, along with the rest of the world, to see what he does. 

As always, comments welcome.

(Denyse Selesnick is a CityWatch columnist. She is a former publisher/journalist/international event organizer. Denyse can be reached at: [email protected]) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

BILLBOARD WATCH-The slow-moving but relentless push for more digital billboards on LA’s commercial streets got a boost last week with the unveiling of a detailed plan for allowing the now-prohibited signs. Presented to the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) committee, the plan would require billboard companies to make payments to the city and remove a certain number of existing billboards in exchange for the right to put up new signs of the highly lucrative digital variety. 

The committee directed city agencies to develop a legal framework to implement the digital billboard plan, even though the City Planning Commission (CPC) last year approved a new citywide sign ordinance that restricts the brightly-lit signs with rapidly changing ads to sign districts in a limited number of high-intensity commercial areas. That action would put those signs off-limits in more than 80 per cent of the city’s commercial zones. 

With certain exceptions, new billboards and alterations to existing billboards have been banned in LA since 2002 and digital billboards have been explicitly prohibited since 2009. However, state law allows cities to enter into relocation agreements with billboard companies, which means that a billboard can be moved from one location to another without running afoul of billboard bans such as LA’s. 

This law, intended to relieve cities from the burden of paying large amounts in compensation if a billboard has to be removed from private property for a street widening or other public works project, has been advocated by billboard giant Clear Channel as a mechanism for not only putting up new digital billboards, but turning on many of the 99 digital billboards that went dark by court order three years ago. 

In the CLA’s plan, the relocation agreements would allow new digital billboards to be put up or the existing digital billboards to be turned on in locations of the companies’ choice without hearings and approvals by zoning officials or local planning commissions. As long as the companies agree to make a specified annual payment to the city, take down a certain number of existing billboards, and meet restrictions regarding location and illumination, permits for the new or re-activated digital billboards would be issued “by right.” 

This, of course, directly contradicts what billboard company representatives and pro-digital billboard politicians have said for several years, which is that communities should be able to choose whether or not they want the signs on their commercial streets. If people in North Hollywood or East LA see the billboards as bringing benefits to their community, the argument went, they should have them; if people in Silverlake or Westwood see them as a detriment, they should be able to say no. 

Be that as it may, here are the details of the CLA’s plan: A billboard company wishing to put up a new digital billboard could choose to remove existing billboards at a ratio ranging from 2:1 to 9:1, based on square footage of sign face. A standard full-sized billboard is 672 sq. ft., so two of those or some other number of signs adding up to 1,300-plus square feet would have to be removed. If a billboard company chose the 2:1 ratio, it would have to pay the city an annual fee of $250,000, but if it took down existing billboards at higher ratios the required fee would incrementally decrease, up to the 9:1 ratio, which would not trigger any fee payment. 

The plan also recommends that companies putting up new digital billboards provide “community benefits” to offset the negative impacts of the new signage. These include streetscape improvements, public art programs, and funding for transit-related services, among others. 

There are some proposed restrictions on where the new digital billboards could be put -- for example, in public parks, along designated scenic highways, in historic preservation zones, and areas zoned neighborhood or limited commercial. The plan also proposes a limit on the light cast by the billboards, although the method of measurement is widely regarded as an inaccurate reflection of the brightness of the signs that employ thousands of LED lights, and many cities, including LA, have begun using a newer, more accurate method that measures the light at its source. 

After listening to these details, along with a related report by the City Administrative Officer (CAO) and comment from members of the public, PLUM committee chairman Jose Huizar closed the discussion by directing the city agencies, with the assistance of the city planning department and City Attorney’s office, to return with additional details needed to implement the plan, which would require ultimate approval by the full City Council. 

Despite the fact that the issue has drawn heated public debate, and the plan represents the first detailed step in the direction of allowing new digital members on most commercial streets, not a single member of the committee other than Huizar had any comment or question for the city officials presenting the reports. 

Before moving on to other items on the committee’s agenda, Huizar also got in a swipe at the City Planning Commission, which he has accused in the past of overstepping its bounds by making changes to the sign ordinance sent to it by the committee. Those changes mean that the City Council will need a supermajority, or 10 votes, to overrule the commission’s approval of an ordinance that restricts new digital signs to sign districts. 

Huizar also raised an issue that has been alluded to but not explicitly discussed by committee members in the past, which is the idea that the less affluent City Council districts have borne the brunt of billboard blight in the past, and are therefore particularly deserving of the relief promised by the takedown provisions of the CLA’s digital billboard plan. 

The councilman, whose district encompasses most of downtown and the majority Latino communities of East LA and Boyle Heights, pointed to statistics in the CAO report showing that his district ranks first among the city’s 15 council districts in number of billboards. The district, along with two South LA districts, have 36% of the total billboards in the city, Huizar said. And while the City Planning Commission’s restriction of new digital billboards to sign districts also includes a requirement that any new signs be offset by the takedown of existing billboards, Huizar said that this would not result in a significant reduction of billboards in those districts. 

But are Huizar’s East LA district and the two predominately Latino and African American districts in South LA he cited really disproportionately blighted by billboards? According to city records, Huizar’s district has 772 billboard faces, which is the highest of any of the 15 council districts. Council districts 8 and 9, represented by council members Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Curren Price, respectively, who also happen to be members of the PLUM committee, each have 719 billboard faces, ranking them second to Huizar’s district. 

However, if those districts are ranked by total square footage of billboard faces, Huizar’s district ranks 7^th, and the other two 11^th and 13^th. In fact, the district ranked first on this scale, councilman Paul Koretz’s predominately Westside district, has 279,000 sq. ft., compared to 165,000 sq. ft. in Huizar’s district and only 97,000 sq. ft. in Price’s district. Which means that Koretz’s more affluent district has fewer billboard structures than those other districts, but the billboards have significantly larger faces and therefore display larger, more prominent advertisements. Thus, the argument over which districts are disproportionately blighted by billboards turns on the question of what is the major source of the blight, the billboard’s structure or the advertising displayed on the face. 

The council districts ranked 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th in terms of square footage of billboard space each have more than 200,000 sq. ft. Along with Kortez’s district, those districts represented by Mike Bonin, David Ryu, and Mitch O’Farrell also happen to be the ones in which Clear Channel and Outfront Media put up all but a handful of 101 digital billboards beginning in 2007 and ending with a moratorium at the end of 2008. Those districts not only had more full-sized billboards to convert to digital but are among the most affluent in the city and therefore more attractive to advertisers paying premium rates for the 8-second spots on the signs. 

It’s therefore no mystery why Koretz, Bonin, and Ryu have publicly announced their opposition to allowing digital billboards anywhere outside sign districts, as per the City Planning Commission action. Councilman Paul Krekorian has also publicly opposed plans to allow new digital billboards outside sign districts on private property, although none of the 101 signs went up in his San Fernando Valley district. O’Farrell hasn’t taken as definite a stand as his four colleagues, but has told constituents that he was happy with the planning commission’s action. 

If the plan presented this week to allow digital billboards beyond those limited sign districts is eventually approved, Clear Channel could turn on most of the 84 billboards it put up in 2007-2008. Likewise, Outfront Media. And the city’s third major billboard company, Lamar Advertising, which owns some 3,000 small billboards in mostly lower-income neighborhoods, could erect new digital billboards on commercial thoroughfares in areas with the more affluent consumers valued by advertisers. 

For example, the plan would allow Clear Channel to turn on a now-dark digital billboard on Santa Monica Blvd. in West LA in exchange for removing two or three old, rundown billboards in Council District 8 in south LA and paying the city an annual fee of $250,000. That might seem a great deal for Harris-Dawson, who represents that district and has complained of billboard blight there, but what of people in the residential neighborhood adjacent to that Santa Monica Blvd. billboard who repeatedly complained of constantly changing light cast into their homes and brilliantly lit ads for products and services looming beyond their roofs in the night sky. 

A fourth member of the PLUM committee, Gil Cedillo, whose district west and north of downtown includes some of the city’s poorest areas, could also benefit from the removal of old, blighted billboards, especially since Clear Channel and company are not likely to look at most of the district as fertile ground for new digital billboards. The fifth member, Mitchell Englander, represents a much more affluent district in the northwest San Fernando Valley, but the predominately residential district has by far the fewest number of billboards in the city and probably wouldn’t be a major target for companies wanting to put up new digital signs. 

As mentioned above, the plan would require votes from 10 of the 15 city council members since it conflicts with the ordinance approved by the planning commission. If council members Bonin, Koretz, Ryu, and Krekorian maintain their current stands, and are joined by O’Farrell, they could block that action since one council seat is currently vacant. However, that vacancy will be filled in the upcoming city election and a new council member will be seated on July 1 of next year. 

There are some other hurdles as well. A Clear Channel representative has written a letter to the committee criticizing the takedown ratios as too high, and arguing that instead of a set annual fee the companies and city should negotiate a fee for each relocation agreement. Regency Advertising and Summit Media, two of the city’s small billboard companies, have also argued for lower takedown ratios and fees on the grounds that the proposed plan would shut them out of the process.

And City Attorney Mike Feuer, who unsuccessfully sponsored a statewide moratorium on digital billboards when he was a state assembly member, has not weighed in on the possible legal ramifications of the billboard relocation scheme. Feuer has already poured cold water on one of the PLUM committee’s earlier proposals, which was to grant “amnesty” to all unpermitted and non-compliant billboards in the city. 

To read the CLA and CAO reports in the city’s council files, click here.

(Dennis Hathaway is the president of the Ban Billboard Blight Coalition and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ANALYSIS--California voters once again proved they cherish their role in direct democracy, running through the entire statewide list of 17 measures with no apparent drop off in voting. With 100% of the precincts ‘partially’ reporting according to the Secretary of State’s site, 8.6 million votes were cast for Proposition 51, the school bond, at the head of the ballot; and 8.6 million votes were cast for the plastic bag referendum, Proposition 67, at the tail end of the ballot. 

The fear that voters would give up as they worked down the long list of state propositions did not come to pass. There were variations in the proposition vote totals as usual with a low count for the fairly meaningless advisory measure to overturn the Citizen’s United decision (Proposition 59) tallying 8.2 million votes to a top total of 8.84 million votes cast for the marijuana legalization measure, Proposition 64. Also attracting attention from voters were the tobacco tax, Proposition 56 totaling 8.82 million votes and the anti-gun Proposition 63 that received 8.7 million votes.

In fact, with Proposition 63 and 64 near the end of the ballot piling up votes, some voters apparently looked for those measures adding to the totals compiled by the many voters who ran the entire 17 measure gauntlet.

Money didn’t guarantee a win with the ballot initiatives either, although it was better to have the most money on your side. Twelve of the 17 measures that had the largest war chest were victorious. Opponents of the tobacco tax outspent supporters but lost. The Proposition 60 condoms measure had the most money on the yes side but lost. The plastic bag industry outspent opponents on two measures, Proposition 65 and the Proposition 67 referendum but lost both.

The death penalty procedural reform issue, Proposition 66 is still close with votes to count but it is currently passing. Money was about even on both sides of that measure, although a large chunk of the yes money went to qualifying the initiative.

While the initiative battles have been decided, there may be little rest for those who follow direct democracy in California. Qualifying an initiative still depends on collecting signatures determined by the low gubernatorial voter turnout of 2014. Interests and individuals who want to ask voters to support their issues will take advantage of the low signature requirement to push their proposals for the 2018 ballot.

Proponents are also aware that waiting to qualify a measure closer to the next ballot could mean competition for signatures with other ballot measure advocates. To avoid paying increased signature costs when there are many measures in circulation, don’t be surprised to see some potential initiatives circulating early next year.

(Joel Fox is Editor of Fox & Hounds … where this piece originated … and President of the Small Business Action Committee.)

-cw

CIVIL RIGHTS--In a move hailed by civil rights groups, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) announced Sunday that he’d signed a bill meant to counter the widespread bullying of Muslim and Sikh students in the state. 

The Safe Place To Learn Act requires the California Department of Education to ensure that school districts “provide information on existing school site and community resources to educate teachers, administrators, and other school staff on the support of Muslim, Sikh, and other pupils who may face anti-Muslim bias and bullying.”

According to a November 2015 report from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, 55 percent of Muslim students aged 11 to 18 in California reported being bullied or discriminated against due to their faith. That’s double the national average of kids, including non-Muslims, who report being bullied at school. 

Twenty-nine percent of California students who wear hijabs said they’d experienced “offensive touching or pulling of their hijab.” Ten percent said they’d been physically harmed or harassed for being Muslim. Almost 20 percent said their fellow students had made offensive comments to them online. And nearly 20 percent of students said they’d experienced discrimination from a school staff member.

“Having school site and community resources available to students experiencing bullying is a big step forward to ensuring a safer environment for our kids,” said Hussam Ayloush, executive director at CAIR-Los Angeles, which co-sponsored the bill. “We welcome the support from our governor and legislators in addressing this serious issue.” 

Sikh students, meanwhile, faced similar rates of bullying. A recent study conducted by the Sikh Coalition found that more than half of Sikh children in four states, including California, experience bullying at school. That number jumps to 67 percent for Sikh students who wear turbans. In Fresno, according to the study, over half of the students surveyed said school officials didn’t respond adequately to bullying incidents.

Americans of the Sikh faith ― a religion distinct from Islam ― are often the targets of anti-Muslim violence, harassment and prejudice. 

“Every child has the right to a safe and nurturing learning environment,” said Harjit Kaur, community development manager for the Sikh Coalition, another co-sponsor of the legislation. “This bill provides educators, students and parents with resources to help ensure that right.”

The bullying in California of Muslim students and students perceived to be Muslim came into focus earlier this year when Bayan Zehlif, a senior about to graduate from Los Osos High School in Rancho Cucamonga, discovered that someone had changed her name to “ISIS” in the school’s yearbook. Once a popular girl’s name, “ISIS” these days is more commonly associated with the terror group that calls itself the Islamic State. It’s also become a slur commonly hurled at American Muslims. 

After Zehlif spoke out about against her representation in the yearbook, she says, she was subjected to harassment and bullying. 

“A poster was put up of ‘We Support Bayan,’” she said, “and it was ripped down and students started to cheer.” 

The pervasiveness of anti-Muslim bullying reflects a growing wave of Islamophobic hostility and hate crimes in California and across the nation.  

A report from the California State San Bernardino Center on Hate And Extremism found that anti-Muslim hate crimes increased 122 percent in California between 2014 and 2015. The same report documented at least 260 hate crimes against Muslims nationwide in 2015 ― nearly an 80 percent rise from 2014 and the highest annual number of such crimes since 2001.

The Huffington Post has recorded at least 260 instances this year of anti-Muslim violence, harassment, discrimination and political speech. 

According to CAIR, the Safe Place to Learn Act is the “first and only bill directly addressing the issue of Islamophobia in California. The negative tone in our national politics has enflamed a disturbing trend of scapegoating and fear-mongering targeting American Muslims.”

The bill, which also requires the state superintendent of public instruction to publicly post anti-bullying resources related to Muslim and Sikh students, goes into effect on Jan. 1.  

(Christopher Mathias is National Reporter for Huff Post … where this piece was fist posted.)

-cw

GELFAND’S WORLD--I had a cute opening line for this piece -- Crow doesn't taste very good -- but I'm not going to use it. By now, a couple of thousand people have published their shock, grief, and fear about the electoral tsunami that hit us on Tuesday. Further revelations will keep us on edge for the next several weeks. For example, an infamous climate change denier is being proposed to run the EPA. As recently as Richard Nixon's presidency, Republicans supported pro-environmental policies at least some of the time. The modern party has moved away from that posture in horrific fashion. It will remain the responsibility of the rest of us to refer to the fact of climate change from now on, the same way that Steven Jay Gould began referring to the fact of evolution. 

With all the explanations now being published online about why Trump won, we may run short of electrons. There is no need to repeat all that stuff here. Instead, I will limit myself to comments I heard the night of the election, offered to me by a veteran political activist and observer. He said that he had become concerned during his phone calling for Hillary because, as he explained, "I talked to the voters." He was calling people who were listed as committed to a Clinton vote. They hadn't changed their minds, but there was a distinct lack of enthusiasm. 

He also mentioned watching tapes of several speeches that Trump gave in the upper midwest battleground states. He explained further: Trump didn't talk about immigration to those audiences. He talked about foreign trade. This approach allowed Trump to play on widespread frustrations about job insecurity and the loss of manufacturing jobs. 

I'll insert my own small summary to the why discussion. The generation that came back from WWII lived in a world where European and Asian manufacturing had been turned to rubble. Significant parts of that postwar world lived under American and Russian occupation. Our industrial heartland was unblemished and the world was our market. We had our own oil supplies along with coal, iron ore, and that era's version of the technology sector. Add some of the world's top scientists who came here as refugees, and we were all alone, atop the world economy. 

The 1974 oil embargo meant the end of our independence. We were exposed as dependent on foreign petroleum. The fact that Europe and Asia were likewise dependent didn't seem to help the national psyche. We've been struggling over energy ever since. The Asians and Europeans also struggled, and one strategy they employed with success was to continually increase their exports. Somehow, the U.S. didn't get the memo. 

Today's adult generation were raised in a country where dad and granddad could get work at the steel mills or on the assembly line. Pop could make good money and feel secure about his career. Remember when the U.S. built televisions and radios? Remember when we had three major corporations competing to sell passenger jets? There was a time when the term Made in USA was a major positive. The modern economy involves a lot of innovation from right here, but the products (the iphone, for example) are made overseas. 

Our people have gotten tired of being in a perpetually stagnant economy. Modern America is hard on most of the working class. Employers take advantage -- because they can. Whole sectors of the economy have imploded. People have much to be frustrated about. Still, the most recent Democratic presidents have done much better as economic stewards than the Republicans who served before and after them. Just consider the job creation numbers during the past four or five administrations to see that this is true. 

The take home lesson here is that the working class person's real enemy is Republican policy, not a Democratic president. The corollary is that Democratic candidates and lawmakers have utterly failed to make this point clear to the voters. Michael Moore takes a stab at this failure in his prescription that we take over the Democratic Party. People have to understand that the real choice is between the parties, not whether you happen to find the Republican candidate suitable to have a beer with. 

But enough about economics. The people who voted for Trump may have had some reason to believe that they were voting for economic change, but they were not only factually wrong, they were immoral to do so. Their votes are a collective indictment of their gross moral failure. 

Trump took advantage of the question of Obama's birthplace starting half a decade ago. Everything about that attack on a sitting president was repugnant. Was Trump as racist as the attacks suggested? Maybe so. But if not, then Trump was opportunistically appealing to the most racist elements of the American population. Whether it was direct racism or just the equally evil intent to take advantage of other peoples' racism, Trump should have been disqualified on that basis alone. 

There is also Trump's misogyny. He's a guy who didn't bother to keep his feelings to himself. 

In casting nearly half our ballots for Donald Trump, we have failed the moral test as a nation. It is a bitter disappointment that 150 years after the Civil War, the racist appeals of Donald Trump were met with acceptance. It is a disappointment that in a modern world where women do equal work alongside men, this level of misogyny should be tolerated. 

There was a moral duty to disavow Trump in the voting booth, and we have failed that test as a people. 

One issue has already been raised, particularly in the pages of the Daily Kos website. Hillary Clinton will be the second Democratic candidate in 16 years to win the election in terms of total votes, but lose the presidency because we use the electoral college method of selection. There are a couple of ways of looking at this. The first is that both sides understood the rules going into the contest. The other side is that the rules are intentionally rigged to give an advantage to states with smaller populations. As one blogger explained more directly, the electoral college (unique among modern democracies) was designed to give an advantage to white southern men in an age of slavery. 

Trying to replace the electoral college by Constitutional amendment is obviously a lost cause, but there is a work-around. It is possible for states to enter into an agreement that they will cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote. Imagine for example that such a compact existed already, and that Trump had managed to win the popular vote. California -- in spite of its overwhelming vote for Clinton -- would be obligated to cast its electoral votes for Trump. Or consider what really happened in the vote count. The result would be that California would join enough other states to elect Clinton the next president when the electoral college assembles. It's a way to deal with a harmful anachronism. 

Interestingly, 10 states and the District of Columbia have already agreed to enter the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), and that includes California. So far, the compact includes 165 electoral votes, so it's up to us, if we want it, to bring another 105 electoral votes into the group. It would be something for furious Democrats and independents to sink their teeth into over the next few years. 

In a system where the popular vote takes the win, we Californians would see and meet candidates, because we have a lot of votes to give. In a system where the total vote counts, can you imagine the competing campaigns spending so much of their time in North Carolina the week before the election?

(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected]) 

-cw

NY TIMES--All the dazzling technology, the big data and the sophisticated modeling that American newsrooms bring to the fundamentally human endeavor of presidential politics could not save American journalism from yet again being behind the story, behind the rest of the country.