Posted on 12/01/2004 6:14:40 PM PST by SmithL
SACRAMENTO -- Two Republican lawmakers plan to introduce a bill Monday that would award California's most-in-the-nation electoral votes by congressional districts, a step they say would make it "the leading battleground state for all future elections."
Democrat John Kerry won California's 55 electoral votes on Nov. 2 by taking more than 54 percent of the popular vote.
But if the legislation by Assemblymen John Benoit, R-Palm Desert, and Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, had been in effect Kerry and President Bush would have split the state's electoral votes because of Bush's strong showing in the state's inland areas and a few coastal counties.
Under the Benoit-Harman bill, a presidential candidate would get one electoral vote for each of the state's 53 congressional districts in which he or she had the most votes.
Two electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who got the most popular votes statewide.
Two other states, Maine and Nebraska, use the same type of system. But Colorado voters this year rejected a plan that would have divided that state's electoral votes based on each presidential candidate's share of the popular vote.
Harman and Benoit said their bill would make presidential elections more democratic, increase turnout and discourage candidates from ignoring California. This year there was little campaigning in the state by either Bush or Kerry because Kerry's big lead in the polls.
"It's a slap in the face of California voters that our 55 electoral votes, the largest block in the country, are given to one candidate without anything more than a token campaign being launched in our state," said Benoit. "This bill will bring California back onto the national playing field."
But their bill could face tough going. Both houses of the Legislature, which begins its 2005 session on Monday, are dominated by Democrats,
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The county by county map is immaterial. Congressional districts are apportioned by population, not by county. Here in Illinois, Cook County has half of Illinois' 19 congressional districts either inside it entirely or comprising part of them. The other half are the rest of the state, with some districts having a dozen or more counties in them.
The law. Congressional districts are apportioned by population, and the law does not allow very much variation among them in any given state. You can't put 1000 liberals in one district and 1,000,000 conservatives in another.
If this would pass, it would be years before a lib would be elected again. Without CA it would be easy...
(with the proviso that redistricting reform is essential to prevent gerrymandering)
I don't know how that can be accomplished. If you don't take politics into account when drawing the lines, what do you use? A dartboard? Even trying to be apolitical in these lines is political.
No kidding. Districting is the most difficult political fight.
My modest proposal is to start with a population density map. Draw districts starting with the highest density areas, which encompass (to within say 1%) the same number of people, and move outward from that high-density area doing so. One can use smaller political units' (counties, cities, townships, etc.) boundaries as guides for the District border.
There are two problems with redistricting: gettting the will, and doing it in an evenhanded manner.
Since the Dems could also be called the "urban herd" who flock to these high-density areas, grouping them all together would be seen as political. The Dems would argue that all the urban districts should be 52-48 liberal (by breaking up the urban areas into slivers to go with each slice of suburban area) and the rest catch-all rural districts that are 75% GOP.
I don't believe that there exists an apolitical solution.
No, but there is something to keep states from subdividing their congressional districts -- the Constitution. Any system that apportions the electoral votes would have to be based either on (a) the congressional districts since electoral votes = number of congressional districts plus 2; or (b) percentage of popular vote in the state. In either case, based on recent election trends, republican candidates would syphon off more electoral votes from blue states than dems would from red states.
"Bush carried NC-13? I'd assumed otherwise but hadn't looked it up."
A map showing county-by-county voting results is one thing. A map showing voting results by congressional district is something else entirely. Personally, I think this is a great idea. But I wonder just how much it will matter in the end? Is there a map available that shows the voting results for the 2004 presidential election broken down by congressional district?
It makes sense to some degree, but it doesn't work out that way. To assume it would work out that way assumes completely perfect extension of presidential coattails to each congressional race. Instead, districts will often return their incumbant house representative to congress while voting for the presidential candidate of the other party. Such ballot splitting occurs at the senate level sometimes as well, but is much more common in the house.
All right... who's gonna post the map?
Well, in that post I was responding to one particularly out-there suggestion to apportion them by county.
"Is there a map available that shows the voting results for the 2004 presidential election broken down by congressional district?"
"I don't recall a lot about these votes but they were not directly for Kennedy or any other candidate, but the media have always placed them in the Kennedy national vote total so as to give Kennedy more votes nationally than Nixon."
Yes!!!
God, I'm sick of people fighting here over a proposition that will never get past the RATS anyway. And I'm sick of that 'federalism' argument. States ought to be able to do what they want. It's not a top-down thing--it's CALIFORNIA trying to do it, not the U.S. It's a STATE initiative. They get to choose how they determine electors. As long as each vote is roughly proportional in impact and the districts are fairly apportioned, it'll be fine Constitutionally. It's already done in some states.
Yep.
My read is that the electoral college is the last remnant of our republic. Screw with that and we'll see some lawsuits filed about Article IV, Section 4.
Read Article II of the US Constitution : The State shall determine how electors are chosen. Frankly, the legislator, if wanted too, could deny the public the right to vote in a Presidential election.
What if a majority of states have Democrat control legislatures and permanently do away with presidential elections ? somehow I dont think Scalia and Thomas would support "state's rights"
Initially many states elected congressmen the same way 48 states now choose electors, that is sans districts.
That 1876 election was quite a doozy, The new state of Colorado simply skipped an election and simply appointed the (R) electors.
One could argue if it was "fair", but it was certainly constitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.