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.
"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
I’m not certain but if applied during the last few national elections, there would be no such entity as Free Republic as the Democrats/Liberals are clearly the adversaries of true free speech.
Gore would be the Prez, and we’d have a boatload of more international problems.
"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
We are getting closer and closer to the day when a demogogue can present himself and be elected dictator without any checks and balances. We have had two Dem nominees whose colleagues in the Senate didn’t like or support. Parties used to vet candidates, but they are weaker, now. We don’t need any more propaganda driven democracy based on focus groups and sound bites.
Not to pick nits or anything, but didn't Philly have more voters take part in the election last go round than were actually registered? That would make it more like 105% democrat vote... :-)
Is everyone here really this bad at math, or have they given up on thinking?
This is the same as letting only the present Congress vote for president.
"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
No kidding. Places like Chico, Redding, Modesto, Fresno, and Bakersfield do tend to be comprised of a different breed of citizen. I’ve visited some of those places for extended periods - culturally, compared to our “home” in the Bay Area, day and night. There are two Californias (paging John Edwards!)
Hmmmm — there is a lot I do not know about the EC. What I do know, however, is that it was set up to guarantee that the most populous cities would not run the show, but that smaller rural areas would have equality. AND it was to guarantee that we would NOT have a democracy, where everyone has one vote. Because ‘the most popular’ is not always the best for all, and often mediocre at best.
I am really wary of changes in the system that move it more towards a straight democracy; conformity and mob-think are very strong attractions to the human heart, and we need checks and balances all the way down the line.
Also, the Law of Unintended Consequences is a very strong force, kind of like gravity. Things that sound really great, which are often seen as ‘it will be a great improvement,’ many times prove to be disasters.
This new system, to me, sounds like straight democracy without the checks and balances of small states vs big states, etc. Hilary, I know, has been blabbing about doing away with the EC. This might well be one step towards that.
No, actually if all states had used the Maine/Nebraska system of allocating electors, Bush would have won both the 2000 and 2004 elections with an even larger margin in the EC:
cf. http://www.martin.uky.edu/~web/programs/mpa/Capstones_2005/Rinehart.pdf
(It’s a student paper that ran the numbers for both the Maine/Nebraska system and a system in which each state’s EC votes are divided proportionally according to the vote within the state, which system would also have given Bush a more comfortable margin of victory.)
The winner-take-all system is actually a nearly pessimal system for implementing the Founders intent that the EC provide more weight to rural America in the selection of a President, and the heavy weighting it gives to urban voters in urban states favors the left.
Unless congressional districts are drastically redrawn to favor the Democrats in just about every state, the GOP would have a *huge* advantage if every state adopted the congressional-district method of allocating presidential electoral votes (currently used only by Maine and Nebraska.
In 2004, President Bush carried 255 congressional districts (41 of which were won by congressional Democrats in 2004, and 20 more which were won by congressional Democrats in 2006) to only 180 for Kerry (18 of which were won by congressional Republicans in 2004, of which only 10 seats were still held by Republicans after 2006). Throw in the 2 extra EVs that would be given for carrying a state and the 3 EVs Kerry got from DC, and President Bush would have won reelection by 317-221 (instead of 286-252).
And since the states would not be winner-takes-all, it would have been impossible for Kerry to make up the difference by swinging one or two large states his way; that 96 EV margin would have constituted a landslide. In fact, President Bush would have received 278 electoral votes (8 more than needed to win) just in the states and districts he won with 53% or more of the vote, so even had there been a 6% swing towards Kerry it would not have been enough for Kerry to defeat President Bush.
That being said, the Constitution clearly provides that presidential electors are selected in such manner as provided by the respective state legislatures, so we won’t see a national system absent a constitutional amendment.
Great, I go through all that trouble, and you post a paper with the same conclusion just a few minutes before I hit “post.” : )
Actually, it seems that the author missed a few districts in 2004, since the EVs added up to 507 instead of 535.
In a state where the 9th Circuit would jump on this plan , where even Arnold would gripe, this idea has no chance to survive. I would love it for Ca. since I am a citizen there but in other states, it would kill the Pubs. Ox being gored, pardon me using that name, is the template.
My only concern about doing it by district is that it will make federal gerrymandering THE supreme agenda, and rodents would attempt to pack as many Republicans into single districts as possible, so that they’d win huge majorities in a handful of places while the rodents carry more districts narrowly. Since White Republicans are not a protected political class and enjoy no rights as per the Justice Department is concerned, they could engage in mass disenfranchisement with impunity.
Obviously, having a Maine-type method of allocating EVs would increase the incentive to gerrymander districts, but it’s not as if such incentive isn’t present already. Personally, I would prefer that the congressional-district method is adopted by states that vote Democrat for president but have Republican state legislatures. : )
Either leave the EC alone or abolish it. I favor the former. Its worked for 200+ years.
Perhaps I need to reassess my thinking. At least you have both presented convincing numbers.
Thank you.
In an ideal world, it might make for a better EV system.
In the real world, I see 2 problems:
1) opening up the pandora’s box of Electoral College tinkering may lead us to a worse answer, but a popular one (pun intended): Base the winner on total national popular vote, ie do away with the Electoral College. Gore 2000!
2) A congressional system would increase the incentive for gerrymandering. Feels great when GOP does it, but Dems do it more aggressively and successfully - a lose/lose.
Another option would be a possible proportional vote mechanism for each state. But the flaw in this, like the flaw in popular vote is that it opens up oppty for fraud.
Interestingly, the national popular vote does *not* make each vote count as much as these district-based plans, and thus on a very real ground-truth level, an EC type system is a superior form of democratic election than a huge national popular vote based one. It has to with complex calculations related to the sensitivity of the final result to a particular vote. The math might be beyond most people but people understand the intuition that every vote counted in many close states in 2004, whereas it wouldn’t have in a national vote count.
“That being said, the Constitution clearly provides that presidential electors are selected in such manner as provided by the respective state legislatures, so we won’t see a national system absent a constitutional amendment.”
- correct. And we shouldnt be worried too much if there are some local differences, just so long as the EC as a whole is maintained and the concept of state votes for President endures.
Thank You for that.
I’m older now, and certainly not willing to do the legwork for making my own case concerning the Electoral College vote.
One of the many reasons that I enjoy posting out here is that someone such as yourself will have facts for me that I cannot readily obtain.
The GOP advantage from this system could well be fleeting.
It would provide an advantage now because the overconcentration of minorities and liberal whites in urban districts more than makes up for the fact that minorities and liberal whites are less likely to vote than moderate and conservative whites.
However, with modestly more dispersal of minorities and liberal whites, the phenomenon would reverse, as they made non-urban districts more competitve while still having the firewall of their undervoting urban districts.
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.