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 ...
This would guarantee a Republican President for the foreseeable future. I rate the chances of it becoming law at something like one in a jillion. Well, maybe it's not that bad. Maybe it's two in a jillion.
I would have figured an even split: Kerry gets 2 for winning the state overall, plus 3 (McCollum, Sabo, Oberstar) for Congressional districts. Did Bush win the Iron Range district this time?
"Sure, if we could have all those CA red districts, I'd give 'em the 1 blue of 8 here in IN."
It's a good idea because it will never actually happen. What it will serve to do is highlight the hypocrisy of liberals who want the same thing done in conservative states in order to gain electoral votes, but will fight like hell to keep it from happening in CA.
"I would have figured an even split: Kerry gets 2 for winning the state overall, plus 3 (McCollum, Sabo, Oberstar) for Congressional districts. Did Bush win the Iron Range district this time? "
actually, electoral votes should be assigned by counties imho.That would be a true federalist system and return the power of representation to the most responsive electorate.The country has strayed far from a system where state legislatures elected senators. What do you think???????????
I always forget NW IN.
Hill isn't giving up easy, either.
Done nationwide, this hurts Democrats so much more than it could hurt a Republican.
Which Bush state would have had the most votes thrown to Kerry? I'd guess Texas for sheer numbers, more than Florida, but it would be more interesting to figure it as a percentage. I could see Kerry having won 3/5 districts in Iowa, 2/3 in New Mexico, but after that it's a biiiiiig drop. Georgia would give Kerry 4/13 districts; North Carolina probably the same.
>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.
But now that such a move in California would make the chances of a RAT winning the White House even slimmer I will safely bet that the RATS are now opposed to it.
Situational Ethics.
Two points: 1. Read Article I. 2. Consider the revolution if a state tried to deny the people the right to vote on Electors.
"Hill isn't giving up easy, either."
I think the Supreme Court wisely junked that system in the 1960s.
I prefer the way that some of those 4,000-person counties in Nebraska vote compared to my 1.4 million-person county in Massachusetts, but I can't seriously argue that they should have equal voting rights. There's also nothing to stop states from subdividing counties like mad to prop up their totals.
In Minnesota, Kerry won the 5th and the 8th CD. Bush won the 1st,2nd,3th,4th,6th,and 7th CD.
Bush would have won Districts 1(Democrat held), 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, probably 9, 10, and Probably 11.
He'd lose 2 statwide because of the steal in Detroit.
He's only lose districts 5(Flint, Saginaw, Bay City), 12(SE Oakland/South Macomb), 13/14(Detroit and Downriver), and 15 (Ann Arbor, Monroe, Downriver).
Leave things along. There is great wisdom in our democratic republic system.
Wish the Dims in WA would do it here, but they won't. Pres Bush won about 28 of the 39 counties.
Bad idea. I like the electorial college as it is. I would rather see the state of Califorina split in two. One state could be called SanFraLASac and the other could be called Red Califorina. Then one day my family and I might be able to live in California without being in legal trouble as soon as we got there.
Actually Sodrel claiming fraud in one county. At the rate they're going, Hill to gain about 60 votes in a 1400 vote spread.
Monroe County a problem child. Bloomington? IU? Ripe for funny business.
Weren't the first few Presidential elections by state legislatures? Neil Boortz has stated that there is no right to vote in the constitution, only a right to representation. I as many others need to brush up on this
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.