Two lawmakers want to split state's electoral votes by House district

AP ^ | 12/1/4

[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,

[AuH2ORepublican]

I added wrong when I said that Bush would have probably gotten around 335 EVs had the entire natione used a Maine-style system of apportioning EVs. I think the number is closer to 320. And a 3% shift in the vote towards Kerry would have resulted in Bush still winning, but with around 290 EVs, not 310. We'll know with more certainty when the presidential vote by CD numbers are available for all states.

[scannell]

If this were to happen, then the Rats have long since seen their last Presidential victory.

[scannell]

And all the Republicans who were against it in Colorado will be for it in California. And they'll be hypocrites, too.

Ok, time for the civics lesson. You are flat wrong here. The problem with the Colorado initiative was that it was a voter referendum. The California initiative is a legislative action. The Constution calls for the electors in each state to be distributed according to the prescription of the state legislature (thus Nebraska & Maine). In all likelihood the Colorado referendum would have been held "unconstitutional" because it is an action of the voters not the state legislature. NO HYPOCRICY HERE!!!

[TBP]

In the Florida fiasco four years ago, the Florida legislature almost had to send Congress its own set of electors chosen by teh Legislature. Only the Supreme Court stepping in to stop the Florida court from rewriting the law any more saved the people's elected electors.

[TBP]

the older I get, the more respect I have for the folks who put together the constitution of the United States and our form of government. Checks and balances are a good thing, and that applies to the electoral college.

AMEN.

Well, the wise men who put together the Constitution left the power to determine how electors should be chosen to the sovereign states. They cna choose to do winner-take-all or to do the district system or to do proportional representation (which is waht was proposed in Colorado) or to have the Legislature choose the electors or whatever they like. And as states-rights constitutionalists, we conservatives should be supporting that.

The same principle applies to the different decisions that different states have made about whether electors are required to vote for the candidate to whom tehy are pledged. In some states they are legally required to do so; in other states they are not. Some states allow unpledged electors on the ballot; some don't. Constitutionally, these are properly state decisions. So is the decision about allocation and selection of electors.

I wonder how long it would be before some third parties start focusing on specific districts to collect a handful of electors so as to throw the election into the House (or release them to another candidate for some political consideration.) That certainly would make things interesting.

[Perdogg]

Exactly. This however, would only be permitted if the Fla law had allowed them to do this under the circumstances.

In Mass this year, the legislator enacted a law requiring that the Mass House approve any replacement to the Senate by the Governor, this is constitutional under Article one.

[TBP]

Great quote from The Father of the Constitution.

[TBP]

If one counts the congressional districts that each candidate wins, couldn't one count each congressman or woman according to the party he represents and add two to each state that each candidate won? In other words take the number of Republican congress persons and add two for each state the presidential candidate won.

Wouldn't that give us the number of electoral votes for each candidate?

Not necessarily. Many voters split their ticket, so they vote, say, Republican for President, but vote for a Democrat for Congress, or they vote Democrat for President then vote for a Specter-type Republican for the House. You'd have to get the breakdown of each district's Presidential vote.

Of course, it ould be intersting to show us how each CD voted for President as opposed to how it voted for Congress.

[TBP]

If you don't take politics into account when drawing the lines, what do you use?

The Supreme Court's standards of compactness, contiguity (the definition of which should be tightened up), and being as equal as possible in population. Period. If you have to use a bipartisan commission to present a plan to the Legislature, take it or leave it, no amendments, that would get the partisanship out. So would computers programmed with the aforementioned standards. Again, presented to the Legislature for a straight up-or-down, no amendments possible.

[TBP]

In 1968, Wallace had his slate of electors on the Democrtic line in Alabama and made Humphrey's electors run on some other line.

[TBP]

El bumpo.

[dennisw]

I still can't believe Colorado voters were smart enough to not vote in their version of this sucker bill. I give great credit to them for not falling for this faux populism.

[COEXERJ145]

Many voters split their ticket, so they vote, say, Republican for President, but vote for a Democrat for Congress, or they vote Democrat for President then vote for a Specter-type Republican for the House.

Happened in Texas during this last election. District 17 went strongly for President Bush but sent a hardcore liberal to the House.

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's an excellent idea. It's also called the Mundt plan. There are three advantages. First, corrpution in one district doesn't spread totally to the whole state. Second, it is closer to the popular vote without sacrifing the small-state senatorial boosting. (Actually, large states have an advantage in the current setup. A single voter has less influence in a large state, but the payoff is bigger when that voter helps turn an election.) Third, gerrymandering for congressional districts need not be the best gerrymandering for presidential elections. (One cannot in general optimize two outputs of a single input.)

[swmopatriot]

Thanks

[Navy Patriot]

This would kill the DNC.

You bet. If just three of the states you named did this, the Rats would have to completely overhaul their party just to get back in the game, let alone win.

This would increase the effectiveness of the Electoral College, to the Rats dismay.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"In 1968, Wallace had his slate of electors on the Democrtic line in Alabama and made Humphrey's electors run on some other line."

---

You are correct, in 1968 Wallace ran in Alabama on the Democrat ballot line and Humphrey ran on the "National Democratic Party" ballot line. But at least Humphrey managed to get on the ballot in Alabama that year. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson couldn't even get in the ballot in Alabama, and the two slates of electors in the state were Barry Goldwater's Republican Electors and a slate of "Unpledged Democratic Electors"; Goldwater carried the state with 69.45%.

[TBP]

Well, LBJ didn't belong on any ballot. :)

Wonder who those "Unpledged Democratic electors" would have voted for?

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Wonder who those "Unpledged Democratic electors" would have voted for?"

---

I assume 99% of people who voted for the Democrat slate were voting for Johnson (conservative Democrats in Alabama all voted for Goldwater that year), but if the electors were a group of good ol' boys they probably would have cast their electoral votes for Governor Wallace or maybe Senator Harry Byrd.