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,

[Myrddin]

Congressional districts are supposed to encompass a nearly equal number of people. Assignment of one elector per congressional district gives the most even-handed approach. Counties have little to do with population. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice for a county with 3 million people to have the same voting power as a county with 30,000. Population densities vary that much within the boundaries of "counties". The congressional district apportionment is re-adjusted every 10 years after the census.

[Rebelbase]

Algore might have been the President of the US in 2000 had this scenario been allowed to play out in Broward and Palm Beach counties.

[dpwiener]

This is an excellent idea which I have long advocated. It should be noted that it is very different from the Colorado proposal: Colorado would have split Electoral votes according to the ratio of overall votes instead of in winner-take-all Congressional Districts. Hence Colorado would almost always have a 5-4 split for one party or the other, and it would hardly be worth battling over its net one Electoral vote.

If the California proposal was combined with fair redistricting (which will be the subject of an upcoming initiative measure), then a large number of Congressional Districts would be competitive for both parties. California (and every other state which adopted this procedure) would instantly become a true battleground state. A strong campaign by a strong candidate from either party could sweep most of the available Electoral votes, making it well worth the effort and expense of campaigning throughout California.

Of course this is unlikely to be adopted. The Democrats currently have a lock on ALL of California's Electoral votes, so why would the Democrat-dominated state legislature pass a reform which could only dilute their Electoral College totals? And if the Republicans ever regained control of the state legislature, they would similarly be reluctant to pass a reform which would dilute their Electoral College totals in a state that was then shifting back in their direction.

[livius]

Unlikely to be adopted (thank goodness) because it is even more easily manipulated than our current system.

If the Dems currently have a lock on all of CA's votes, then you folks have got to work harder.

[Soul Seeker]

This may sound like a good idea on the surface, until you contemplate how districts could be divided.

What's to stop Dems from making every block of San Francisco a congressional district and unifying the conservative blocks of the state into one?

Successful in CA, they then move to split conservative leaning states in same manner.

We should keep our current system.

Instead, I recommend all Californian Conservatives migrate. CA would lose some of its electoral advantage with the descrease in the population count, "red" states would turn solid and "Blue" states would become swing states would the conservative immigration.

[Figment]

"We ought to do this across the country"

Most states would lose their relevancy in a presidential election under this formula. Your state would most likely be reduced to the two votes for majority votes. It won't happen in California, the Dems won't allow it. The Dems control the legislature and it would destroy their party nationally. It would mean more attention from the candidates in an election year though.

[Perdogg]

I am not arguing that it would be wise politically, I am just saying it would be Constitutional. The Supreme Court has re-affirmed this in Bush v. Gore and McPherson v. Blacker.

[Perdogg]

But Bush would have pivked EV in other States, We are talking Congressional Districts not counties.

[GraniteStateConservative]

	ACTUAL RESULTS				MAINE-NEBRASKA RESULTS				DIFFERENCE IN PLANS
YEAR	DEMS	REPS	OTHERS	WINNER	DEMS	REPS	OTHERS	WINNER	DEMS	REPS	OTHERS
1960	303	219	15	Kennedy	252	280	5	Nixon	-51	61	-10
1964	486	52	0	Johnson	466	72	0	Johnson	-20	20	0
1968	191	301	46	Nixon	190	290	58	Nixon	-1	-11	12
1972	17	520	0	Nixon	62	476	0	Nixon	45	-44	-1
1976	297	240	1	Carter	269	269	0	Tie	-28	29	-1
1980	49	489	0	Reagan	141	397	0	Reagan	92	-92	0
1984	13	525	0	Reagan	69	469	0	Reagan	56	-56	0
1988	111	426	1	Bush	161	377	0	Bush	50	-49	-1
1992	370	168	0	Clinton	323	215	0	Clinton	-47	47	0
1996	379	159	0	Clinton	345	193	0	Clinton	-34	34	0
2000	266	271	1	Bush	250	288	0	Bush	-16	17	-1

[Rebelbase]

oh, my mistake. You're right.

[Whitehawk]

Thank you for the reply and you are correct.

[DM1]

Its About Time
George Will mentioned this years ago

[ken21]

this was dumb in colorado, and dumb in california.

[pete anderson]

What about the Republicans that were against the Colorado Plan?

[CommerceComet]

Do you know what the 2004 results would have been under the Maine-Nebraska system?

[swmopatriot]

Your sentiment is exactly correct, but the adoption of the district plan would actually be moving us back towards the system that the founding fathers intended when they created the electoral college.

From the Congressional Digest, January 1970: "Of the several methods employed, voting for electors by the people in districts was thought to be the fairest method by such leaders as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Alexander Hamilton, and Daniel Webster. Madison is recorded as saying that this (district) method 'was mostly, if not exclusively, in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted.'"

See more here at the CDPA

[traviskicks]

stupid idea. I hate idiot Republicans who will sacrifice prinicpal for politics.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"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."

---

I haven't seen final district numbers for most states, but I believe that Kerry only carried 8 of the 32 CDs in Texas: The three black-plurality districts and 5 of the Hispanic-majority districts. I'm assuming that Bush carried both Solomon Ortiz's and Ruben Hinojosa's districts, since Bush scored in the high 40s in those districts (as redrawn) in 2000 and he seems to have improved by about 5% in those districts. I think Kerry carried only 6 of the 25 districts in Florida (the three black-majority CDs plus the Wexler, Deutsch and Jim Davis districts), which is a testament to Republican redistricting (I'm assuming that Bush carried both Shaw's and Bill Young's CDs, which showd improvement from 2000 and in which Bush had gotten around 47% in 2000). The next big state carried by Bush was OH, and, because the GOP controlled redistricting there as well, Kerry managed to carry only 5 of the 18 CDs.

In IA, Kerry carried only 2 out of 5 CDs (Bush barely carried the state's only CD with a Dem congressman). In NM, I'm not sure who carried Wilson's Albuquerque-based CD, so Kerry won either 1 or 2 of the state's 3 CDs. In GA, where the Dems controlled redistricting, I think that Kerry only carried 4 of the 13 CDs, assuming that Kerry rather narrowly carried the 12th CD (won by Barrow over GOP Congressman Burns) and that Bush carried Sanford Bishop's 2nd CD (in which Bush had gotten 50% in 2000); Bishop's CD is the only one held by a black Democrat Congressman to have been carried by Bush in either 2000 or 2004. In NC, Kerry carried just 3 out of the 13 CDs (the two black-plurality districts and the Durham-Chapel Hill CD held by Price). In MO, Kerry would win 3 CDs (KC and the 2 St Louis CDs). I don't think any other Bush state would give Kerry as many as 3 electoral votes.

And, of course, President Bush would gain lots of EVs if every Kerry state had a Maine-style system: 20 in CA, 10 or 11 in PA, 10 in MI, 9 or 10 in NY, 9 or 10 in IL, 5 or 6 in NJ, etc. I think President Bush would have won around 335 electoral votes if every state handed out EVs by congressional district like Maine and Nebraska do, as opposed to 286 EVs with the current system. And, more importantly, it would have required a large popular-vote margin for Kerry or any Democrat to get to 270 EVs. With winner-takes-all, Kerry could have gotten 289 EVs had just 3% of the vote shifted (Kerry would have won the popular vote 49.5%-48.5%), but with a Maine-style system Bush would have gotten over 310 EVs even had he lost the popular vote by 1% because of a 3% vote swing.

So yes, a Maine-style system adopted nationwide would pretty much keep the presidency in GOP hands for the foreseeable future, so long as the Democrats don't screw us too badly in the post-2010 Census redistricting.

[pepperdog]

I share your concerns. Our founding fathers have been proven, time and again, to be wise beyond all understanding and expectation. I think we should stick with what they designed. Your point about judges tinkering with the redistricting processes in the states is very astute!

[AuH2ORepublican]

"In Minnesota, Kerry won the 5th and the 8th CD. Bush won the 1st,2nd,3th,4th,6th,and 7th CD."

---

No, the 4th CD, which includes all of Ramsey County (St. Paul) and northern Dakota County, gave Kerry 61.8% and Bush 37.1%. Had President Bush carried the heavily Democrat 4th CD, Betty McCollum would not be the district's Congresswoman (Patrice Bataglia would have beaten her handily) and Bush would have easily carried the state.