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. . . .

[Still Thinking]

In your original post you said:

Some liberal states want the majority popular vote in their state to get all the electoral votes rather than have them apportioned according to county and precinct votes. That would effectively eliminate the Electoral College in practice. Eliminating the Electoral College would eliminate America as it was founded.

So I understood you to say that liberals want a winner take all system, and that if they got that it would effectively eliminate the Electoral College. But the winner take all system is already the norm in 48 states, so I don't see how they could yearn for that, nor now it would effectively kill the Electoral College, since that's the way things already stand. Obviously I missed something you were trying to say.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Obviously I missed something you were trying to say.

Or perhaps I was wrong.