Posted on 12/27/2004 10:54:29 AM PST by white trash redneck
[snip]
two Republican state legislators are trying to change the status quo by ending California's winner-take-all system and replacing it with one that would award electoral votes proportionate to the popular votes received.
Candidates would get one electoral vote for each of the state's 53 congressional districts they carried. The final two votes--those representing the state's two senators --would be awarded to the candidate who garnered the most votes statewide.
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
An alternative suggestion: I think it would be more profitable to split California, east-west. Everything west of the Coastal Range, with a line extending to include Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties, would be "West California," and everything east of that line would be "East California," and a reliable "red state." This would have political and policy benefits beyond simply the electoral college.
BTW, since the Chi. Trib. is excerpted, and it requires a registration to get the entire article, would you mind posting which two California legislators suggested this change in the distribution of electoral votes?
Assemblymen John Benoit and Tom Harman introduced the bill, considered a long shot, earlier this month.
No it's not. It's a horrible, selfish, shortsighted idea that will only serve to diminish the influence the state has on the election. Believe me, when California votes Republican---and I believe it will, eventually, happen---we'll be glad those 55 votes are a bloc.
This makes a heck of a lot of sense to me! As a "red" voter in a "red" district trapped in a "blue" state, I would love to see my vote mean something rather than be overwhelmed by the government drones and welfare queens.
Has anyone calculated how past elections would have turned out had this system been in use?
BTW, the top priority of the Republicans should be the initiative to take reapportionment out of the hands of the legislature. As long as the Dems are gerrymandering the state, apportioning electoral votes by gerrymandered congressional districts really doesn't do any good. But I suspect that since the current reapportionment was a sweetheart deal which gives current Republican legislators safe districts, they'll be unlikely to change the system.
Except that's not what was tried in Colorado. Colorado's plan would have simply divided the entire state proportionally to the popular vote; advantage DEMOCRATS.
This plan would divide the vote by winners of each CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. That's a HUGE difference and it would force the presidential candidates to come to the state and campaign, in EVERY part of the state.; advantage REPUBLICANS.
This is a great idea and it would make sense to do it nationally.
How about North California and South California?
The other option is to leave well enough alone and fix the problem with people who vote more than once, are dead, have their dogs vote, etc..
Advantage - Republicans
Trust me when I say, you fix the problems with the board of elections in the inner cities and you fix the problems with elections.
It is also incredibly ignorant to call California a "through-and-through Blue State." Some of the most conservative counties and congresional districts in the entire nation are in California.
Nationwide? I don't know, but if Colorado had proportional allocation in 2000 Gore would have won.
FWIW, there are some good discussions of potential reform options here http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#proportional
The problem with proportional allocations is that it could result in fractional distribution of electors, though if it were done by congressional district the problem would be solved.
"How about North California and South California?"
North California would have San Francisco and Sacramento, and South California would still have L.A. and San Diego, so there wouldn't be any difference than the way things are now.
YES....do the same with Washington and Oregon.....split them east and west, too.
Good point. In my state, you have to have a photo ID AND be REGISTERED on the printout to vote. No register, NO VOTE!
This wouldn't be as informative as it first appears, because the way modern campaigns are conducted depend heavily on the exact makeup of the electoral college. So if the rules are changed, the campaigns would change, too, and it's not clear that the outcome would be the same as a simple re-examination of the votes would suggest.
This is a bad idea mathematically. It is in no states interests to subdivide its electoral votes in any way. Yes, it sucks for people like me who are Republican voters in a Democratic state. But it sucks equally for people who are Democrats in heavily Republican states.
Fine, this subdivides the votes by congressional district. But for example, my district voted something like 64% Democrat. The same problem of "trapped" votes exist. It's just the way it is.
From a theoretical mathematical standpoint, a winner-takes-all approach actually maximizes the likelihood that its voters can swing an election. In other words, winner-takes-all gives the state the most power. Why would s state want to dilute its power in some misguided notion of so-called "fairness"?
The best layman's description I have heard of the mathematics of the electoral college is the World Series. The World Series is decided by who wins the most games. Theoretically, a team could completely blow away the other team for three games, and lose the other four by slim margins. In this situation the losing team would actually score more total runs! Proportional allocation of electoral votes would basically award the World Series to whomever scores the most runs. District-based allocation would award the World Series to whomever won the most innings.
I guess it depends on what you consider to be "the problem".
The problem I am most concerned about is that presidents are elected after campaigns in a handful of medium-to-small states. In the olden days presidential coattails used to lift candidates nation wide. That didn't happen here this year because people in California were told repeatedly that their presidential vote was largely irrelevant.
A robust presidential campaign would have helped turn around our legislature. We need to see a truly national presidential campaign. If electoral votes were awarded by congressional district, Bush would have won the last two elections quite handily. Meanwhile so called "middle of the road" Democrat candidates nationwide who are truly leftists would have been forced to campaign for their loser, dragging them down.
Riiiiiiight!
If this happens in Cali... Dems will NEVER win a presidential election again.
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.