EDITORIAL: In defense of 55 electoral votes

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 8/20/7 | Editor

[SmithL]

AMERICANS DON'T like the Electoral College. It's unwieldy, it seems anti-democratic and it has given rise to one of the more despicable facts of modern presidential campaigning: rather than addressing the concerns of the entire country, major-party candidates choose to do most of their post-primary campaigning in just a few battleground states - Ohio and Florida happen to be the most popular ones right now. So, in the face of a proposed California ballot measure that means to erode it, allow us to explain why the Electoral College system is worth defending - at least until someone comes up with a nonpartisan, effective means of abolishing it.

The ballot measure, known right now only as No. 07-0032, was filed by Thomas W. Hiltachk, managing partner of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk. This is the law firm for the California Republican Party. The measure would do away with the custom of awarding all of California's 55 electoral votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote. Instead, 2 electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner and the rest would be given to whoever won in each of 53 congressional districts. Because 19 of California's 53 districts are represented by Republicans, and 22 districts voted for President Bush in 2004, this initiative would probably offer around 20 electoral votes to a Republican in the 2008 presidential election.

"What can be more fair than this?" said Kevin Eckery, spokesman for Californians for Equal Representation, which is the nominal entity sponsoring the initiative. "Everyone's voice is going to be heard. It could even help third-party candidates, like the Green Party, in a place like San Francisco."

Please. This is nothing but dirty politics. . . .

[GATOR NAVY]

Because 19 of California's 53 districts are represented by Republicans, and 22 districts voted for President Bush in 2004, this initiative would probably offer around 20 electoral votes to a Republican in the 2008 presidential election.

The Chronicle: We're against changing the process until we can figure out a way to make sure democrats win.

[Christopher Lincoln]

Some Democratic candidates would have been elected under a system of election by districts (e.g. Johnson in 1964), but it would certainly favor Republicans. One analyst noted that under such a system Nixon would have won in 1960, since he carried more states and more congressional districts than Kennedy did. I don’t know if anybody has made the same analysis for more recent elections (1976 and 1992 come to mind).

[Christopher Lincoln]

You've got the idea.

[jimmango]

Thanks for posting. That is an interesting article.

[Christopher Lincoln]

Direct election (transcending state boundaries) of the President and Vice-President is almost as impractical today as it was in 1789.

[Political Junkie Too]

AMERICANS DON'T like the Electoral College.

How about "Americans don't like one state having 55 electoral votes."

California has 55 votes, Texas has 34, New York has 31, Florida has 27 Pennsylvania and Illinois have 21, Ohio has 20, and the rest are less than 20 each.

California's Electoral College votes are in a league of their own. Perhaps the answer is not to apportion California's Electoral Votes, but instead to divide California into two states?

-PJ

[Yo-Yo]

This is exactly what Nebraska and Maine do. It is the only way to apportion Electoral Votes to more closely reflect the popular vote without changing the Constitution.

I fully support these efforts and think the practice should be spread to all 50 states.

[Calpernia]

Well said.

[Yo-Yo]

I've asked people who want to do away with the Electoral College if they'd like to do away with the Senate as well, since it was structured the way it is for the same reasons - I get a blank stare, or, in the case of the more arrogant libs - denial that they have anything to do with each other.

The Founding Fathers set up the Constitution so that Senators were appointed by the State Legislature. You prefer we go back to that method?

[Lancey Howard]

LOL!! These shameless scumbag Democrats at the SF Chronicle defend the electoral college only when they could get hurt by a change like the one proposed in their own state. Previously, they could be heard whining all across the country about how unfair the electoral college is.

[Lancey Howard]

Naturally, the SF Chronicle likes the proposal put forth by Democrat elector John Koza.

[Lancey Howard]

I think that electoral votes should be apportioned by geographic area rather than population.

[kabar]

It’s called Federalism.

[LibLieSlayer]

NOT a single person alive today could set up a Nation like our FOUNDERS did. To think someone dumb enough to work for a san fruitcisco newspaper could out reason our Founders... is insane! You want to see civil war... screw with the Electoral College!

LLS

[Yo-Yo]

Montana would love that!

[shove_it]

“Excuse me, correct me if i am wrong but if every state used
this new California system to pick electors,given the
present ideological makeup of this country, a demoncratic
president would NEVER be elected.”

I’m with you. According to my threadbare NewsMax t-shirt proclaiming “Bush Country 2004”, the USA looks mighty red to me.

Welcome to FR by the way.

[RonF]

That’s a county map, not a congressional district one. Notice, for example, Illinois. Note the blue fleck up in the right hand corner on Lake Michigan’s shore that you can barely see? That’s Cook County. A little over 40% of the state’s entire population lives in that one county. And it has a concomitant share of the state’s congressional districts (many of which extend into the collar counties surrounding it) and votes. So don’t be fooled.

[DuncanWaring]

The Founding Fathers set up the Constitution so that Senators were appointed by the State Legislature. You prefer we go back to that method?

I certainly do.

That would be true "Campaign Finance Reform".

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Worse, it nationalizes vote fraud. Ballot box stuffing in Philadelphia is confined to Pennsylvannia right now. With a national poll, the incentives for vote fraud are heightened.

[Yo-Yo]

Well, as things sit today, so would I. My State (Michigan) has a Republican House and Senate, but two Democrat US Senators.

However, tomorrow? Who knows.