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.
Another take: Democrats Oppose Pro-Democracy Initiative
At some point there maybe a major change that will impact the procedure of allocating the EC votes within each state. If it was in place today nationwide and assuming the current make up of the House held and each district went the way it currently is represented [233 - 202] then it would almost assuredly place a democrat in the Presidency.
The congressional-district method of allocating electoral votes provides for EVs to go to the presidential candidate that carried the district in the presidential election, not to the presidential candidate of the party that won the House election. See my post #51 for a breakdown of how President Bush would have won in a landslide in 2004 had a congressional-district method been in place in every state (and how he would have won even had he gotten 3% fewer votes and John Kerry gotten 3% more votes).
It would take far more than a modest dispersal of Democrats to make a congressional-district method of electoral vote allocation more advantageous to the Democrats than would be a winner-takes-all method. Remember, most big cities are in states that the Democrats carry in presidential elections, and anything that gives the Democrats less then 100% of the state’s EVs is sub-optimal for them. For example, if half of Detroit’s population moved to the suburbs, it could allow the Democrats to carry a couple more CDs, but only if the Democrat presidential candidate carries the state of Michigan as a whole; a CD method at a time in which half of Detroiters moved to the suburbs could yield a 9-8 Democrat advantage in EVs, which is better for them than the 10-7 GOP advantage in EVs had the 2004 elections featured the CD method in Michigan, but is still far worse for the Democrats than the 17-0 sweep they would get with a winner-takes-all system.
The only way that Democrats could benefit from a CD system is if they control the redistricting process in just about every multi-member state and adopt an effectively partisan redistricting plan in each such state. But even then it might not be enough. For example, the heavily partisan Democrat gerrymander of 2002 in Indiana eventually resulted in 3 additional Democrats being elected to Congress, but it did not increase the number of districts that voted for Gore or Kerry. Another example is GA, where the outrageous Democrat gerrymander of 2002 created 4 new districts that favored the Democrats on paper, but only two of those new districts actually voted for Gore or Kerry.
Bush wins by an even BIGGER margin in 2004 if the "electors split by district" plan was in place, because Bush won over a TON of marginally DemocRAT districts in the south and west.
2004 ELECTION RESULTS
CONGRESS
Republicans = 287 seats (House + Senate)
Democrats = 242 seats (House + Senate)
PRESIDENCY - WINNER TAKE ALL SYSTEM
Bush = 286 electoral votes
Kerry = 252 electoral votes
PRESIDENCY - EV PER CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Bush = 314 districts/electoral votes
Kerry = 193 districts/electoral votes
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.