Electoral System Initiative Worries Dems (Proposed Shift To District Election Formula Alert)

Sacramento Bee ^ | 08/05/2007 | Kevin Yamamura

[goldstategop]

Democrats are growing anxious about a state initiative filed last month by a prominent Republican attorney to change the way California assigns its presidential electors, even though the proposal has no discernible financial backers yet.

Rather than assign all of California's 55 electoral votes to one candidate under the current winner-take-all system, the initiative would split the nation's largest electoral bounty between two or more candidates.

Filed by GOP lawyer Thomas Hiltachk, it would give a presidential candidate one electoral vote for each congressional district he or she wins in California, plus two additional votes to whomever wins a plurality statewide. If it qualifies, it would appear on the June 2008 ballot and take effect in next year's presidential contest.

That could spell disaster for Democrats and be a significant boon to Republicans in a state the GOP hasn't won since 1988. If the proposed system had been in place in 2004, President Bush would have received 22 electoral votes from California rather than none

[savedbygrace]

No, actually, you are wrong. They did want to ensure that every State had a Republican form of government. They distrusted a democracy as much as a monarchy.

[Cheburashka]

But would they send an army in to depose a democratic (as opposed to republican) government? I’m inclined to doubt that. How would they define a democratic government that was beyond the pale? What exactly constitutes a republican government? What if that government doesn’t meet your (and their) definition of a republic, but it is supported by a clear majority of the people of the state? It’s not as easy as it appears to come up with a clear definition.

Now a restoration of King George in (pick a state)... Same with a Cromwellian dictatorship.

[savedbygrace]

All 50 States have well-established Republican forms of government now. I really don’t understand what your point is.

[goldstategop]

The legislature may let the people decide the issue of electors, if it chooses to do so. I see nothing unconstitutional about that. Its a smokescreen to divert attention from the fact the proposed apportionment of electoral votes in CAlifornia is still MORE than fair to the ruling party. They can't counter that - so they argue about a technicality just as you're doing - that has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of the proposed initiative measure.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Comstock1]

Just splitting hairs, and I’m sure its been decided, but this is for appointment only. It doesn’t say anything about apportionment.

They could throw darts at a list of names, but it doesn’t say that the electors can be apportioned by result of the general election.

Just thinking out loud on an issue I don’t really care to research.

[Cheburashka]

“...in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...” That seems pretty broad to me, and I interpret it that they can direct apportionment to be used. Your mileage may vary.

If this idea actually goes anywhere (and it may not) as an initiative, I expect a court or courts to be involved somewhere down the line to rule on its validity.

It would be funny to see the Democrats argue against proportional representation, but I expect they would and not even bat an eye at their own hypocrisy.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the comments. You raise a good point, but then one was raised by another person in return also. I will have to side with him in that the Legislature would seem by definition those elected to office.

The Legislature is not authorized to defer that decision to the people. However, it could be argued they decided to defer. The language states that they decide how the votes are disbursed. It does not say that they defer the decision.

[BillyBoy]

Here we are.

Bush wins by an even BIGGER margin in 2004 if the "electors split by district" plan was in place, because Bush won over a TON of marginally DemocRAT districts in the south and west.

2004 ELECTION RESULTS

CONGRESS
Republicans = 287 seats (House + Senate)
Democrats = 242 seats (House + Senate)

PRESIDENCY - WINNER TAKE ALL SYSTEM
Bush = 286 electoral votes
Kerry = 252 electoral votes

PRESIDENCY - EV PER CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Bush = 314 districts/electoral votes
Kerry = 193 districts/electoral votes