So on a district-by-district basis what would be the electoral result?
Posted on 10/31/2007 9:20:07 AM PDT by calcowgirl
Inland Rep. Darrell Issa is throwing his political clout and significant financial support behind a state ballot initiative to change the way California's electoral votes are cast in presidential elections -- a measure some say could decide the next president.
The wealthy congressman, who single-handedly jumpstarted the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis, said Tuesday he has agreed to support the measure both financially and by providing access to his own fundraising network, including his substantial e-mail lists.
Issa, R-Vista, declined to say how much money he would give, describing his contribution as fluid.
Dave Gilliard, a Republican consultant with close ties to Issa and campaign manager for the electoral initiative, said the amount is significant -- but well short of the roughly $1.6 million he spent on the recall election. Both said Issa's current monetary contribution amounts to less than a quarter of the funds raised to date. Gilliard declined to say Tuesday how much the group had collected.
Today is the deadline for ballot-measure committees to report contributions through Sept. 30 to the California Secretary of State's office.
The measure, if successful, could virtually guarantee that Republicans would hold on to the White House following next November's election, political experts -- and the Democrats -- said.
"It could easily be the determining factor in who the next president is," said Bruce Cain, director of the University of California Washington Center. "If the Republican Party can pull this off, its a brilliant tactic."
Giuliani Link Disputed
Known as the California Presidential Election Reform Act, the proposed initiative would replace the current winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. The new process would award one vote to the winner in each of the state's 53 congressional districts.
Using recent elections as an indication, the change would likely cost Democrats roughly 20 electoral votes. That is the same number wielded by the entire state of Ohio.
Democratic leaders have labeled the proposed initiative "GOP theft" and "legal voter fraud." On Tuesday, California Democratic Chairman Art Torres reiterated that stance, calling it a brazen attempt to steal the White House.
He also pointed to links between the proposed law and Rudy Giuliani's campaign, suggesting the Republican presidential candidate is behind the initiative. Specifically, Torres pointed to Anne Dunsmore, who recently left her position as a Giuliani fundraiser and now is working on the electoral initiative.
Giuliani spokesman Jarrod Aden denied that the campaign has any involvement with the California initiative. Issa emphasized that he has not aligned himself with any presidential candidate and has no immediate plans to endorse one.
"I believe in the effort," Issa said. "That's where I start and that's where I finish."
Recall Redux?
Torres said he is concerned by Issa's mere involvement, considering the resounding success of the Davis recall.
That effort appeared to be going nowhere before Issa infused the $1.6 million into the effort. Much like the 2003 recall, the electoral initiative appeared all but dead last month after key proponents, faced with an aggressive and organized Democratic-run counter campaign, abandoned the campaign.
"It was his money that made it (the recall) happen," Cain said. "If he can pull this off twice in a lifetime, he will have twice snatched victory away from the Democrats."
Issa and other proponents say the proposed law would increase voter turnout and give California greater influence in Washington, D.C.
Presidential candidates, they say, would be forced to battle for support in what is regarded as a "blue state" -- one that reliably votes for a Democratic presidential nominee.
California wields the most electoral votes but has ceased to be a player in the general election.
Not since George H.W. Bush beat out Michael Dukakis in the 1988 election has a Republican taken California. These days, candidates put the state in the Democratic column early on and focus their campaigning in states where neither party has an obvious majority, such as Pennsylvania and Florida.
In order to qualify for the June 3 ballot, proponents must obtain 434,000 signatures. The current incarnation of the pro-initiative group, called California Counts!, inherited the roughly 100,000 secured before the initial effort stalled last month, Gillard said.
The signatures will have to be reviewed and verified by officials in each county in which they were collected before Feb. 4 in order to get the initiative on the June ballot. Since that could be a lengthy process and many of the signatures could be tossed out, Gilliard said he hopes to have 650,000 signatures by Thanksgiving.
He estimated the campaign would cost more than $2 million.
PICKING A PRESIDENT
ELECTORAL COLLEGE: The number of votes a state casts is based on the combined number of lawmakers representing it in the House of Representatives and the Senate. In all, there are 538 electoral votes. To win, a presidential candidate must get at least 270 of them, regardless of how much of the nationwide popular vote he or she receives. The system is designed to force candidates to appeal to the entire country, instead of a few areas with high concentrations of voters.
WINNER-TAKE-ALL: Currently, all 55 of California's electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the statewide popular vote.
DISTRICT-BY-DISTRICT: Under a proposed change, each of California's 53 congressional districts would cast an electoral vote for the candidate who had won in its district. The two remaining electoral votes would go to the winner of the statewide popular vote.
PING!
As predicted, the on-again/off-again Initiative is back on.
It's theft to make the members of the electoral college actually vote the way "the people" of their local region vote? Interesting. Perhaps the Dems can explain that one to me.
Ironic, the same party that whined "count every vote" wants to disenfranchise California voters in the minority so their vote DOESN'T count. Millions of people will cast a vote for a GOP president in California, but under the current system, EVERY single one of the state's 55 electoral votes will be cast for a RAT.
The Dems don't want to count every vote. They want every vote counted as Dem.
I know some dismiss this as populist, and I have some misgivings, but CA is simply not going to be voting Republican in a Presidential contest in the forseeable future (the last time was 1988), and this is the only way to assure that Republican voters in the state have their voices heard, otherwise there is little reason for them to even cast a vote at all.
The Constitution allocates electoral votes to each state on the basis of population and leaves it up to the states themselves to determine how to award those votes to candidates. They are given unlimited restrictions on how to do so. Most choose a "winner take all system" where the statewide winner gets the states entire electoral count, but there's no mandate that they have to do this. California could even decide to have its electors, say, vote for the tallest Presidential candidate -- and it would still be "constitutional"
Althought I think Tennessee would switch from likely Republican to big battleground state if it used the "electoral-votes-choosen-by-congressional-district" method.
The big problem I have with respect to California is because of its gargantuan share of the EV’s, it immediately becomes unfair to the minority of voters whose preference is ignored, even though their total numbers will be larger than the amount of those voting in numerous other states combined. I think that once a state reaches 20-25 EVs, it should be required they vote by each Congressional district. In a state with 55 EV’s, which is more than 10% of the college, it is ludicrous that it is winner-take-all.
I ask all of you... What would make anyone so proud of a "Purple" Golden State???
This 'THING' doesn't help our man Hunter, or even his V.P. designee, newly endorsed by Tom McClintock, Fred Thompson.
FReepers focused on preserving and continuing the Reagan Conservative Movement, or anything resembling it and not on some superficial "Vowel Movement," should not become enamoured with this subtrafuge!!! (at least that's how I see it)
The candidates who are on tight campaign budgets would be forced to stay where they can get the most votes for their dollar spent. They would end up concentrating on the major cities.
No, actually, it wouldn't. In 2004, only 2 districts went for Kerry, mine in Nashville (5th) and Memphis (9th). In 2000, only 3 went for Gore (5th, 9th, and the rural West TN 8th, but by only literally a hair). So we'd go from 11 EVs for the GOP to 9. Some other Southern states would only shed about 1 vote each to a Dem (AL, LA, MS, SC), some would shed none (AR, OK, WV). Only in FL, NC, TX, and GA would you see more losses (GA & NC with 3, for example).
Well, I’d rather get 22 or so EV’s out of CA then zero. You know the chance of getting all 55 EV’s in CA is almost nada. If we had had that in place in 2000, the controversy over FL wouldn’t have mattered, since Dubya still would’ve scored an overall college win regardless.
In all reality, you are precisely correct! Only the Metro-Sexual regions would benefit from this... AS USUAL!!!
The "Rural Cleansing" of America's united states of the unique mix we used to have of both demographic AND geographic representation has already been eroded enough by the Warren Court's "Cows Don't Vote" shift of power to the Metro-Sexual metroplexes of America.
We don't need to start this bastardization of America's traditional "winner take all" electoral college system!!! Especially not to obtain some brief, passing advantage in ONE election!!! (they'll reverse this dumb thing in horror, immediately after the up-coming vote)
I’d answer you with “You’re playing with fire by supporting this further erosion of our traditional electoral process, I believe.” But I’m finding it increasingly difficult to post replies due to “PROXY ERROR’s” on over half my recent posting attempts!!!
I’d answer you with “You’re playing with fire by supporting this further erosion of our traditional electoral process, I believe.” But I’m finding it increasingly difficult to post replies due to “PROXY ERROR’s” on over half my recent posting attempts!!!
So on a district-by-district basis what would be the electoral result?
I'd answer you with "You're playing with fire by supporting this further erosion of our traditional electoral process, I believe." But I'm finding it increasingly difficult to post replies due to "PROXY ERROR's" on over half my recent posting attempts!!!
"The Proxy Server received an invalid response from an upstream server." "The Proxy Server could not handle the request POST/Pearl/post
DOES THAT MEAN THAT AL QUEDA IS ATTACKING OUR FREE REPUBLIC.COM? (upstream)
I'd answer you with "You're playing with fire by supporting this further erosion of our traditional electoral process, I believe." But I'm finding it increasingly difficult to post replies due to "PROXY ERROR's" on over half my recent posting attempts!!!
"The Proxy Server received an invalid response from an upstream server." "The Proxy Server could not handle the request POST/Pearl/post
DOES THAT MEAN THAT AL QUEDA IS ATTACKING OUR FREE REPUBLIC.COM? (upstream)
I don’t know what’s up with the umpteen proxy errors. Another thread said we’re under jihadist attack today. I write my responses in notepad and copy and paste to the box and just keep hitting “refresh” when I get the error until the post goes through so I don’t get multiple copies.
In any event, this isn’t an unconstitutional measure. It’s already in place in ME & NE. If I were in CA, I’d give it serious consideration. As a Republican voting in a Presidential race, I can’t make this plainer than telling you that your vote doesn’t matter. It’s not a competitive state anymore. It hasn’t been in 20 years. My vote matters because TN went from competitive to Republican leaning. The only thing in CA less likely to happen than the GOP winning all 55 EV’s in winner-take-all is getting a Republican Mayor in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco... in that order.
Or, perhaps it has something to do with the lackluster candidates in the last 20 years? California has always had a diverse population, riddled with leftists. Living here, I can say I don't think it has changed all that much, except for the Dems organizing better while Republicans go about their daily lives. Remember, we're home to Jerry Brown, Tom Hayden, the Hollywood communist infiltration, Cesar Chavez and the farmworker movement, etc.
Ronald Reagan won in a landslide, twice. George H.W. Bush won the state 19 years ago, probably sliding in with folks believing he would be like Reagan. Since then, we've been offered lousy candidates, IMO. Perhaps if the Republican Party would stop being preoccupied with game-playing, and/or changing the rules of the game, and actually get out and SELL their message with decent candidates, we'd have a chance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.