Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calif. GOP Challenges Electoral College
newsmax.com ^ | July 31, 2007 | staff

Posted on 07/31/2007 4:49:06 PM PDT by kellynla

A prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the California ballot next year that could shake up the 2008 presidential contest to his party's advantage.

California awards its 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner — the largest single prize in the nation. But under the proposal, the statewide winner would get only two electoral votes. The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.

The state voted Democratic in the past four presidential elections. But the change — if it qualifies for one of two primary ballots early next year and is approved by voters — would mean a Republican would be positioned the following November to win about 20 electoral votes in Republican-leaning districts. That is a number equal to winning Ohio.

The Presidential Election Reform Act is being pushed by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer in a Sacramento firm that represents the California Republican Party and worked with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He did not return phone messages left yesterday at his office. A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman said the governor is not involved with the proposed initiative.

Democratic consultant Chris Lehane called the plan "an effort to rig the system in order to fix the election."

"If this change is made, it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008," Mr. Lehane said in an e-mail.

Nineteen of the state's 53 congressional districts are represented by Republicans. President Bush carried 22 districts in 2004, while losing the statewide vote by double digits. Maine and Nebraska now allocate electoral votes by congressional district.

A draft of the proposed initiative says nixing the winner-take-all system would give presidential candidates "an incentive to campaign in California. ... Many of the geographic areas of the state would be as important to a candidate's chance for victory as many of the smaller states."

"We'll take a serious look at it, once it qualifies for the ballot," said state Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring.

If it does qualify, Democrats probably would spend millions of dollars against it, which could drain money from other races.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: cagop; calinitiatives; electionpresident; elections; electoralcollege; gop; hiltachk; potus; republicans; thomashiltachk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: Paul8148

Even if it does help Republicans, it is a violation of the principles for which we are supposed to stand. I hate it, too.

First, his proposal is the same as breaking up Kalifornia into principalities, while not doing the same in the rest of the nation. It’s just flat out unconstitutional. Everybody is supposed to be on the same page with the same system. His proposal kills all that. So, I’m against it.


21 posted on 07/31/2007 5:55:00 PM PDT by bioqubit (bioqubit, conformity - such a common deformity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bboop

The EC was carefully thought out as a means of indirectly electing a President. The original ideas was that electors were elected by the people or the legislatures of the several states, the Electoral College met, and elected the President (or didn’t and the House of Representatives got to).

The state-by-state winner-take-all wasn’t carefully thought out, but the result of popular pressure to have electors picked by the people rather than the legislature, the rise of parties fielding slates of electors commited to their party’s candidate, and strategizing by the party in control of the state legislatures (based on the assumption that the voters who elected them will favor their party at the Presidential level) to maximize their supporter’s influence.

Nebraska and Maine, as I already noted, haven’t accepted this last strategizing, and I think their approach is closer to the Founders original intent, or at least as close as one can get in the presence of a two-party system. If California adopted the same approach, I think a fair number of other states might follow suit, and on balance, I think it would be good for the country.


22 posted on 07/31/2007 5:56:04 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit

What principle we stand for does it violate? It’s an example of federalism in action. The Constitution does not specify a winner-take-all system for picking slates of electors commited to a party candidate. The several states can pick any system they want for chosing Presidential electors.


23 posted on 07/31/2007 5:58:05 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dpa5923

“Although I would love to see this happen in CA, it would create havoc if adopted nation wide and would ensure a handful of cities like LA, NY, Philly, and Chicago with a few others thrown in would elect the president...”


Actually, it’s the other way around. The overwhelming Democrat vote in big cities such as NYC, LA, Philly and Chicago would no longer place all of the state’s electoral votes in the Democrat column; today, of those 4 states, only Pennsylvania is competitive in presidential elections, and the 90%+ Democrat vote in Philly has allowed the Democrats to get all of the state’s 21+ EVs for the past 4 elections. Chicago has something like 5 or 6 electoral votes within its borders, and those 5 or 6 would obviously go to the Democrats, as would the 2 EVs going to the statewide winner in Illinois, but the Chicago vote would no longer prevent the GOP candidate from picking up EVs if he carries Downstate and suburban districts.

I’m not saying that I necessarily support this measure being adopted nationwide, since it would create an even greater incentive to gerrymander congressional districts, but it would serve to make big cities less powerful in presidential elections, which I think would be a good thing.


24 posted on 07/31/2007 6:01:45 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
I think I like it too, and they've got a great hook...it'll get the pols to pay attention and spend time in California. They could get some bipartisan support for that reason.

Same applies elsewhere of course.

It might lessen the impact of TV media in LA, SF, NY and other big cities 'cause they would probably want to spend more time in flyover territory.

25 posted on 07/31/2007 6:03:15 PM PDT by chiller (Old Media is not yet dead. Turn them off and they will die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Who are these idiots at the CA GOP?

It's minds like these that got a European liberal elected governor of California under the GOP banner.

26 posted on 07/31/2007 6:05:06 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

This could get very interesting. If all states did this, it would more closely represent the people. Is that a good thing?


27 posted on 07/31/2007 6:06:20 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag

Don’t think so....California GOP wants to put some meaning into their presidential vote.


28 posted on 07/31/2007 6:08:57 PM PDT by chiller (Old Media is not yet dead. Turn them off and they will die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bioqubit

It is not unconstitutional in the least. The constitution provides that electors shall be elected in such manner as the respective state legislatures provide, and two states (Maine and Nebraska) already elect presidential electors by congressional district (with the 2 remaining EVs going to the statewide winner). In fact, it would not even be the first time in history in which our most populous state elected presidential electors by congressional district: In 1828, NY elected its 36 electors (comprising 13.8% of electors nationwide, 3.5% higher than California’s current share of the Electoral College) by congressional district, which allowed John Quincy Adams to get 16 of the state’s 36 EVs despite losing statewide by 2.9%. The congressional-district method was also used by Michigan in 1892, allowing Grover Cleveland to win 5 of the state’s 14 EVs despite losing statewide by 4.5%.


29 posted on 07/31/2007 6:13:26 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

They aren’t challenging the electoral college. They are challenging the stranglehold that Dems have on California politics.


30 posted on 07/31/2007 6:23:26 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
If it does qualify, Democrats probably would spend millions of dollars against it, which could drain money from other races.

A WIN-WIN SITUATION FOR THE GOP. Go for it California Pubbies; go for it!!!
31 posted on 07/31/2007 6:28:09 PM PDT by no dems (Dear God, how long are you going to let Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and John Conyers live?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chiller
California GOP wants to put some meaning into their presidential vote.

Just like they did for their gubernatorial vote?

32 posted on 07/31/2007 6:58:59 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
If it does qualify, Democrats probably would spend millions of dollars against it, which could drain money from other races.

A good politico-guerilla reason to push it, even though the odds are against it. I note that Chris the 'rat scumsucker Lahane never made his feelings known about identical propositions in smaller states.

33 posted on 07/31/2007 7:02:40 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
if the legislature of a state wanted to, it could decide to select the electors itself

This system lasted in at least a few states well into the 1800's. The winner-take-all system is not required by the Constitution, which leaves the means for "appointing" electors up to the individual States.

34 posted on 07/31/2007 7:10:57 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

Agreed. I was thinking along the lines that the cities would get more votes because of population instead of the vote spread across congressional districts. Allow me to present my mea culpa.

I also agree that the threat of gerrymandering would be immense and after careful review, I would like to learn more...


35 posted on 07/31/2007 7:11:47 PM PDT by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dpa5923

Well, your original intuition was correct in that big cities tend to have more non-voters than do suburbs or rural areas, and since congressional districts are drawn based on population, not voters, cities tend to have more congressional districts than their share of the statewide vote (and thus could be said to benefit from a congressional-district presidential electoral system). However, practically speaking, even if NYC got an extra congressional district due to its non-voters, suburban and rural voters would still be better off being able to determine the winner of a reduced number of EVs than being swamped by a 90%-Democrat big city.


36 posted on 07/31/2007 7:21:41 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Good. The Democrats have been claiming ALL the votes should count in a presidential election. Turns out there's a rider to their claim: they mean all the Democrat votes. Republicans can remain disenfranchised. I don't see what's horribly wrong with allowing GOP voters to have their share of the electoral vote go to their party's candidate in November. The Democrats will still receive the bulk of the statewide electoral vote under the proposition. It doesn't disenfranchise them.

"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

37 posted on 07/31/2007 7:45:27 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember
To Chris Lehane, if the Democrats don't win ALL the electoral votes, that's "fixing" an election. If they do, its called "democracy." Yep, the Orwellianism of it all makes your head spin, alright.

"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

38 posted on 07/31/2007 7:47:43 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ken21
I'd say slim to none in this mega-Blue state. But let the voters decide if its principle or partisan politics.

"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

39 posted on 07/31/2007 7:49:43 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

“If this change is made, it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008,” Mr. Lehane said in an e-mail.”

Therefore it will not be allowed.


40 posted on 07/31/2007 7:51:19 PM PDT by Grunthor (Oh God give me patience, strength and forgiveness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson