Table Scraps: Republican losers vs. the Electoral College.

Opinion Journal ^ | Thursday, August 16, 2007 | Peter Hannaford

[xjcsa]

So far it's only affected California, but that means it soon may be heading your way, for what begins in California often spreads across the land. Take, for example, auto emissions, clean air standards and talentless Hollywood "celebrities" In this case, it's a new strategy devised by the California Republican Party. Call it the Table Scraps strategy.

-snip-

What's wrong with this picture? Two things. It plays directly into the hands of the left-wing movement to ditch the Electoral College altogether, declaring the aggregate winner of the popular vote to be the president. This means that a handful of large cities--voting mostly Democrat--would decide the national outcome.

-snip-

The only idea out there worse than this one is embodied in California Senate Bill 37, dreamt up by Sen. Carol Migden, who is better known for having pleaded nolo contendere last week to a misdemeanor charge of reckless driving over a 30-mile stretch of Interstate 80. Her bill, if it became law, would mandate that all of California's electoral votes would be rewarded to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how Californians had voted. This would turn the Electoral College upside down, which is her purpose. It is a case of myopia, based on left-wing ire over the 2000 Bush-Gore race.

[Badeye]

The Dems have known since 2000 Hillary Clinton couldn’t win a national election cycle with the Electoral College ‘intact’.

It was one of the first, if not the first, public pronouncements made by incoming freshman Senator Clinton as I recall, to dump the EC.

[xjcsa]

All true. Another purpose of the Electoral College is to confine vote controversies and fraud to one state; otherwise in a close vote the circus we saw in Florida in 2000 would be seen nationwide, and voter fraud in big cities would affect the entire country’s vote totals. The current California proposal would actually enhance this function in most situations.

[xjcsa]

Your comments all hold true for the Democratic proposals that have been around for awhile to tie electoral votes to the nationwide popular vote; what are your thoughts about the current, very different, Republican proposal?

[pgyanke]

What's wrong with this picture? Two things. It plays directly into the hands of the left-wing movement to ditch the Electoral College altogether, declaring the aggregate winner of the popular vote to be the president. This means that a handful of large cities--voting mostly Democrat--would decide the national outcome.

Um... that's what's happening now. The Bay Area and LA are giving all of CA's 55 electoral votes to the Democrats even though the rest of the state tends red. The new apportionment system actually reduces the power of the urban centers.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Democratic proposals undermine the Constitutional intent of the Electoral College; the current California proposal is well within the letter, spirit, and intent of the Constitution...

Article II, Section 1: "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..."

It appears to me that the letter of the Constitution says that the states may assign their electoral votes anyway they please.

[goldstategop]

Nothing wrong with the district formula - Nebraska and Maine have used it for decades. Its the Democrats who've developed a sudden attachment to the winner take all the system, not because they like it but because the proposed California intiative is an attack on their absolute power. And Democrats never share power - or votes - with their opponents.

"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

[Non-Sequitur]

This means in 2004, its votes despite the state voters, would have gone to Bush.

And had such a system been in place in Texas or Florida in 2000 then that state would have gone to Gore. It's a two edged sword.

[Eagle of Liberty]

Maryland is a solid blue state whose state house approved a bill that would give its electorial votes to the popular vote winner.

What an asinine Bill. Talk about a bunch of elitist yahoos who think they can come up with a better method than the Founding Fathers. Oh wait, they don't want a better method, they simply want one that guarantees Democrat power forever. Giving the state's votes to the NATIONAL popular vote getter simply removes state power from the process and removes ALL of the representation of that state.

The Democrat Party in its current configuration is an enemy of this country.

DEMOCRATS SUCK

[xjcsa]

It appears to me that the letter of the Constitution says that the states may assign their electoral votes anyway they please.

True. I do seem to remember there being some kind of problem with states making agreements with each other in this regard (i.e. it only takes effect if certain other states pass it), but I can't put my finger on it right now.

[JSDude1]

I Concur.

[Teacher317]

I don't understand how this gives power to the Dems "forever". Since it is mostly DEM stronghold states doing this, the Lefties can only lose EV's.

Even if the traditionally GOP states did this, I don't see huge losses of EVs for the GOP (at least, not as large as the DEM's losses), since there are usually more rural and suburban districts than urban districts in any given state. We all have seen the maps showing how the districts went in 2000... it was 228 to 207 for GWB, a comfortable 5% lead, despite the close popular vote tally difference that was about one-tenth that size (0.5%).

If anything, I would have guessed that this idea would've been promoted by the Stupid Party, not the Evil Party. Maybe they're getting stupider, too. We may have to change our name.

[JSDude1]

If this (popular) vote-going agsint the voters of the state wins in reality..or if what you say God-Forbit ever happens..Then there is time for a new “war between the states”..

[aumrl]

I believe this used to be called “The Mundt Plan” for former Rep Sen Karl Mundt of SD.
There is merit to it. It would maintain the Electoral College and still give smaller states power.

[Eagle of Liberty]

The current California proposal would actually enhance this function in most situations

This Cali proposal may have some merit. If all Congressional Districts went the same way in the state, that candidate would get all of the EV. If not, the candidates share them. One thing though, this method moves the outcome to the local Congressional level rather than the state level. Is this a pro or a con? One would think that it would be a positive since currently the states with some big population cities like in NY and CA with a winner-take-all system based on the popular vote of the state eliminates some of the voice in that state. With all Congressional Districts in play, things might get interesting.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

Another purpose of the Electoral College is to confine vote controversies and fraud to one state

Exactly, and this is why the Rats want this.

In a somewhat close election, the Rats can create enough fraudulent votes in urban precincts like Detroit and Chicago where local corrupt Rats control everything, in order to actually steal the national election, instead of limiting the effect of their crimes to single states.

[Eagle of Liberty]

I don't understand how this gives power to the Dems "forever".

That comment was on Maryland's Bill to tie a state's electoral votes to the national popular vote. Just another way for the Dems to try to take away power from the states. Basically, get the national popular vote to always go Dem and you always win. And how would you get the national vote to always go Dem? Why through a large influx of voters who favor government handouts.

The CA method may have some merit.

[xjcsa]

One thing though, this method moves the outcome to the local Congressional level rather than the state level. Is this a pro or a con?

The more I think about it, the more I like it, although I still have some mixed feelings. But I think it's still worth considering. It would make some states (i.e. California, New York, Texas) relevant to the campaigns again if they did this.

[Non-Sequitur]

It’s always been up to the states. South Carolina didn’t hold it’s first presidential election until 1876. Prior to that their electoral votes had been assigned by the legislature alone. The winner take all has been, with few exceptions, the system for over 200 years and it’s worked well. I’m leery of changing it for whatever reason because we have no way of knowing just what the fallout will be.

[Tzimisce]

It’s a bad idea. These laws are written so that the votes go to the *perceived* winner of the election. And (how’s this for surprising) the perceived winner will almost always be the left wing candidate.

[Chi-townChief]

I like the one electoral vote per county plan myself.