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.
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.
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.
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.
“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...”
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.
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.
It's minds like these that got a European liberal elected governor of California under the GOP banner.
This could get very interesting. If all states did this, it would more closely represent the people. Is that a good thing?
Don’t think so....California GOP wants to put some meaning into their presidential vote.
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%.
They aren’t challenging the electoral college. They are challenging the stranglehold that Dems have on California politics.
Just like they did for their gubernatorial vote?
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.
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.
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...
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.
"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
"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
"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
“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.
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.