Posted on 08/21/2007 5:24:04 PM PDT by LdSentinal
California voters are inclined to support a proposed ballot initiative that would change how the Golden State allocates its electoral votes in presidential campaigns, but they're not yet sold on the idea, a Field Poll released today showed.
Currently, California employs a winner-take-all system that awards the state's entire 55 electoral votes to the winner of the state's popular vote.
Under the proposed measure, which could be on the June 2008 ballot, the presidential election would become, in essence, a congressional district-by-congressional district contest. The winner of the statewide popular vote would receive two electoral votes, but the remaining votes would go to the winner in each of the 53 congressional districts.
The proponents of the California ballot measure, largely Republicans, say such a change would make presidential elections more fair by more accurately reflecting the results of the popular vote. However, Democrats have railed against the proposal by charging that the measure is a Republican-driven effort to keep Democrats from capturing the White House.
If the proposal is adopted, analysts suggest that a Republican presidential candidate would get a boost because Democrats can no longer count on all 55 electoral votes from California, which has voted for Democratic candidates since 1988.
All but two states, Nebraska and Maine, give their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis to the presidential candidate who wins the statewide popular vote.
The Field Poll found that 47 percent of registered voters back a change to California's system for electoral votes, with 35 percent opposed. Republicans generally support the change more than Democrats.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
“If the proposal is adopted, analysts suggest that a Republican presidential candidate would get a boost because Democrats can no longer count on all 55 electoral votes from California, which has voted for Democratic candidates since 1988.”
If this were adopted by all states in 1999 , I believe Gore would be president.
I can't wait until the descendants of the illegals become a majority and vote via "ballot initiative" to nationalize all of Orange and San Diego Counties. Then finally the Cali "activists" will get some sense about the dangers of mobocracy.
A solid proposal which if adopted would cut off the Jackass’s ears and tail. I like it. I hope the Californicators go for it. Whats not to like?
Here’s a better idea - split the state into Northern and Southern Californias. :)
Would sure make Presidential Campaigns cheaper and easier.
Not sure about the Constitutionality of doing it via ballot initiative, though I think the Constitution is pretty silent about appointing electors.
As much as I dislike AlGore, perhaps this is the right thing to do. Why? Well, it preserves the essential feature of the electoral college, which is to deliver a result reflecting the broad consensus of the American people, in a manner which reduces or eliminates incentives for cheating. This is why popular voting is a bad thing btw - it pays to load up and cheat on that basis.
Well, the Democrats were all for this when it applied to “Red State” Colorado, so I’m at least curious at how they are gonna frame their opposition to it in this instance.
Especially since it was Left Coast libs pushing this thing in Colorado in the first place.
Ought to be amusing....
Not that it matters much. Even if passed, it would be overturned in the courts.
Wow. This would neuter the beast in one blow. Vermont would be more important.
It is very hard to check this assertionn because State by state breakdowns of presidential voting are organized by county, not by congressional district. Nevertheless, I tried my best a few years ago to analyze such a scenario.
Without a doubt, Bush wins, and it isn't even close.
I believe that if this system (Nebraska/Maine) were in place nationwide, Republicans would have a lock on the White House that would last until the Democrats change their stripes.
So, you're wrong, no way Gore would have won.
I agree about that. The US Constitution is very explicit about the state legislatures having the authority to determine how electors are chosen.
Yeah. The Dems were talking about doing this when I lived in Florida, but (thankfully) couldn’t get enough signatures.
Bear in mind that this is a county map, not a Congressional District map, but you get the idea.
-PJ
Then why has the very same system not been overturned by the courts in Nebraska and Maine?
There’s a good chance of this being challenged in court. The constitution says that state legislatures will decide how to allocate electoral votes. It may not be legal for voters to decide instead of the legislature.
Not sure about this but I dont think a state allocating their vote changes the Republic v Democracy issue. This is not the same as a popular vote and has precedence going back aways. I also think it’s allowed under the constitution or at least not disallowed and supported by supreme court decisions. Again I’m not sure about any of that with any degree of certainty. What I do know is this is not a Democracy issue and it doesn’t have a snowballs chance of passing.
I’m not so sure about this...
As it currently stands...Los Angeles governs where all the electoral votes go.. Nobody else in the state even needs to vote.
Let the propaganda begin.
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.