Field Poll shows Californians lean toward dividing electoral votes (47-35% favor. Dems terrified)

SFGate.com ^ | 8/21/07 | Matthew Yi

[Virginia Gentleman]

I hate to say it, but that map is probably irrelevent in assessing how the electoral vote would come out if it were allocated by congressional district. Many of those small blue bits are densly populated cities and have many districts squeezed into them. In contrast, those large swaths of red have many low population rural counties with congressional districts that cover several counties.

Regardless, even if the GOP were favored by such a plan I would still be against it. If you think gerrymandering is bad now, just wait until it can swing the outcome of the presidential election. At that point, rather than We the People determining who will become the President, the politicans in smoke-filled rooms in charge of redistricting will.

[boop]

The racial gerrymandering would come back to bite the dems in the butt. Those 110% Philadelphia congressional districts would be wasting their time voting multiple times if they can only get a single piece of the elctoral pie.

[Verginius Rufus]

There was a proposal about 15 or 20 years ago to divide California into 3 states. I think I learned about it from The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. Somehow nothing came of it. Of course the politicians in California, especially at the state level, have an interest in keeping the state unified.

[TxCopper]

Umm... ???

The Republicans held the House and Senate plus Bush won ten more states than Gore.

So that would be 60 votes from the Bush states won and then (roughly) 221 for each of the Republican House seats. 281 vs 257 is still a victory.

[RKV]

You are incorrect. Districts are roughly similar in terms of the number of voters per district.

[G8 Diplomat]

...that a Republican presidential candidate would get a boost because Democrats can no longer count on all 55 electoral votes from California

That is true. The Dems get the bulk of their electoral support from California. They can't win enough states to gather up a bulk of electoral votes like the Republicans can, so they have to rely on California's 55 to push them into the 200s. If the Dems are terrified, I say let's do it.

[hinckley buzzard]

This plan is consistent with the intent of the Founders. They never imagined the presidential selection process as a winner-take-all primary. Obviously it is a knife which threatens to cut both ways, but if the State legislature wants to appoint electors this way it is thoroughly legal and constitutional.

[goldstategop]

Considering the Field Poll is liberal, the Democrats have every reason to be terrified. If this passes in Blue State California, the GOP could be poised to take as many electoral votes in November 2008 as in Ohio.

"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

[goldstategop]

The Colorado initiative sought to subvert the Electoral College by awarding the nationwide popular vote winner with all of Colorado's electoral votes regardless for whom the state voted. That's why Colorado voters rejected it. In contrast, the California, would like in Nebraska and Maine, apportion the state's electoral votes on a district basis and award the two at large votes to the statewide popular vote winner. Its perfectly constitutional.

"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

[goldstategop]

If a state delegates its power to the voters to make laws, that's its prerogative. As far I'm aware, no federal court has ever declared a state's resort to the initiative, referendum and recall unconstitutional.

"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

[11th Commandment]

This plan is consistent with the intent of the Founders. They never imagined the presidential selection process as a winner-take-all primary. Obviously it is a knife which threatens to cut both ways, but if the State legislature wants to appoint electors this way it is thoroughly legal and constitutional.

I have read every post and tend to agree with your analysis. The presidential election process was designed for a federalist republic; however, the quick emergence of national political parties and the winner take all system negated the constitutional protections for Federalism. My question is why did the winner take all traditional emerge in the electoral collage?

[goldstategop]

The state's appointing power is absolute. The courts cannot pass judgment on how a state chooses its electors.

"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

[Paleo Conservative]

Philidelphia had close to 100% voting...at least on paper.

103% is pretty close to 100%.

[Paleo Conservative]

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.

Clemenza as a lawyer, what do you think of the constitutionality of this proposed referendum? Unlike some Freepers like goldstategop, I don't think the US constitution allows a referendum to determine the method of allocation of electors. The California contitutional amendment authorizing initiative and referenda did not change anything in the Article 2, section 1 of the US Contitution.

In Bush v Gore the US Supreme Court ruled that the state of Florida's judiciary could not change the laws about how votes are counted or order recounts not specified by laws passed by the legislature. The state legislatures' powers with regards to determining the method of selecting electors are plenary powers.

Article 2.

Section 1

.................

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

.................

[Norman Bates]

Presidential race by congressional districts:

2000
Bush 226
Gore 209

2004
Bush 250
Kerry 165

[Norman Bates]

“Not that it matters much. Even if passed, it would be overturned in the courts.”

Why? Nebraska and Maine do this.

[RinaseaofDs]

” . . . because we know better than our forefathers did.”

The electoral college was a work of genius. It guaranteed that a tyranny of the majority would not occur. It ensured that the interests of rural states would have some significance against the masses all huddling around the flow of federal dollars pouring into the cities.

Stupid and arrogant is like drinking and driving. Churchill was right about pluralities.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I think it needs to be done. Now.

[newzjunkey]

Presumably smart lawyers in CA can craft a means to side step any Constitutional questions and allow the people to direct the legislature to enact laws reflecting a desire to proportion out its electoral votes.

As it is, the whole of CA is held hostage by L.A. and, to a lesser degree, the greater Bay Area.

[sphinx]

If this were adopted by all states in 1999 , I believe Gore would be president.

I'm not going to go back and figure it out, but remember that we elected a Republican House in 2000. Allocation by congressional districts would have put Bush ahead right there. Then you have the two Senatorial seats, which would be awarded statewide. I forget the state breakdown but didn't Bush carry a majority of the states as well? He certainly carried most of the counties; hence the beautiful red/blue map for that year.