President Election Maneuvers (Cal Dems Blast GOP District Formula Alert)

Sacramento Bee ^ | 08/12/2007 | Dan Walters

[goldstategop]

aine and Nebraska allocate their electoral votes by congressional district, and that's what the proposed California ballot measure would do. Each candidate would receive one electoral vote for every congressional district he or she captured. The statewide winner would be awarded the two electoral votes representing the state's two Senate seats.

The initiative was filed by Republican lawyer Thomas Hiltachk, who hopes to qualify it for the June 2008 ballot if he and his associates -- GOP figures all -- can raise enough money. If they make it and the measure were to be approved by voters, it would be in place for the November presidential election.

The measure won't succeed, however, if Democrats have anything to say about it. Although Bush lost California by more than 1.2 million votes in 2000 and 2004, had the Hiltachk system been in place, he would have won around 20 electoral votes in California. The GOP candidate in 2008 could aspire to the same performance, which could undermine Democratic hopes of recapturing the White House. California's cache of 55 electoral votes is so large that winning just 20 of them would be the equivalent of winning a medium-large state such as Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Democrats are denouncing the Hiltachk measure as, in U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer's words, "an unfair political power grab," but it would be fairer -- more reflective of voters' sentiments -- than the winner-take-all system.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats oppose dumping the "winner take all" system of awarding electoral votes in favor of a district formula like that used in Nebraska and Maine for decades. Fairness has nothing do with it. Politics has everything to do with their opposition to the Thomas Hiltachk measure even if it would benefit California in a presidential election year.

"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

[Cheburashka]

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution says:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Note that the manner of appointment of the electors is given to the Legislature, not the people. That means that this ballot initiative is unconstitutional.

This was pointed out to me in a prior thread on this subject, I hemmed and hawed, but the other guys were right.

The reason I hemmed and hawed was that I really wish that this proposal could go through. But right is right and wrong is wrong and you either go by what the Constitution says or you don't, and if you don't, why can the other guys pick out the parts of the Constitution they don't like (Like the Second Amendment) and ignore them?

Of course if someone proposes it as a bill in the California legislature, I would love to see the Demonrats try to rationalize why they oppose it. But they will, no doubt about that, and there's no chance it could pass.

[jmyrlefuller]

Depends on the definition of “legislature.” In its broadest sense, it is any part of the government that creates laws, which would in effect include the initiative process. If you were to use a stricter definition, such as a “republican collective of local representatives,” then you would be right. However, that would also effectively make the initiative process unconstitutional because it says “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” which leaves no room for initiatives.

[Larsblog]

A congressional district allocation of electoral votes will not benefit California. The gerrymandered districts will result in only 3-5 competitive seats. Candidates will very, very likely let those districts fall where they may (especially given the cost of campaigning in CA.) and concentrate on winner-take-all battleground states. California will derive no additional attention from the switch.

Congressional allocation of electoral votes is nothing more than a power play by a given state’s minority party. The Republicans are trying to do it by initiative in California and the Democrats in North Carolina (a red presidential state) are tried to do it through legislation.

The real, non-partisan solution is a direct national popular vote for President. That system would eliminate battleground and safe states as we know them and would therefore make every vote equal. Currently a candidate would much rather have a vote in Ohio or Wisconsin, i.e. a battleground state, than in a safe state like Rhode Island, Montana, or Texas. A national popular vote would force candidates to compete for every vote and make winning or losing an individual state irrelevant.