Posted on 08/27/2007 9:33:59 AM PDT by goldstategop
So if this initiative were to get on the ballot and pass, it would mean that even if the state continued to vote for a Democrat for president, as it has for the past four elections, a Republican would still get some electoral votes. Under this method, Bush would have gotten 19 in 2000 and Gore 35. In 2004, Bush would have gotten 22 electoral votes and Kerry 33.
Democrats are furious over the prospect of a district by district scheme.
They say that unless such a change was made in every state in the union, it would be unfair and would virtually guarantee a Republican president from here on in.
Currently only two states – Nebraska and Maine – apportion their Electoral College votes based on congressional districts. Maine has been doing it that way since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996. Neither state has ever split its Electoral College votes. Maine's four have gone to the Democrat and Nebraska's five to the Republican.
Some Republicans are concerned that if the ballot initiative were to pass here, Democrats might try to get similar measures adopted in states that would be favorable to them. I wondered about that and crunched the numbers for the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
Neither outcome would have changed. In fact, Bush would have won by larger margins.
In 2004 Bush had 286 electoral votes; Kerry 252. Under the district by district method, Bush would have gotten 323; Kerry 213.
And in 2000, Bush had 271 electoral votes; Gore 266. A district by district count would have given Bush 291 votes; Gore 244.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
That argument might have made sense between 1995 and 2006 when we had the House. However, the Democrats now control a majority of the nation's congressional districts and that's not likely to change in 2008.
Thanks, will do.
It’s probably the cynic in me but why do I feel that if the roles in the 2000 Presidential election were reversed (so that Bush won the popular vote but lost the EC) that you never hear any concern about the EC reform.
It's only "unfair" because California has 55 electoral votes. The next largest state has 34 electoral votes. I doubt they'd scream if it were for a 5 EV state.
-PJ
When the DemocRATS still held the Florida legislature, they tried to pass legislation allowing division of Florida's electoral vote by congressional district. They wanted to help Clinton out in 1992. Ironically, if this system had been in place in Florida while none of the other states changed, Gore would have been elected in 2000.
Perhaps Feinstein's misundertanding of federalism comes from the 17th amendment.
The President is not the ruler of the people, he is the head of the federation between the states. The governors are the leaders of the people.
Just as Senators were to be selected by state legislatures to represent the states in the Congress, Presidents were to also be selected by the states to oversee common defense, foreign affairs, and relations between the states.
The 17th amendment replaced state appointment of Senators with popular election, and repealing the Electoral College will replace state selection of the President with popular election, too.
-PJ
As the fertile soil for every whackjob idea to come down the pike, I think California should definitely do this!
If nothing else, it would provide an object lesson to the sane parts of the country.
Can this initiative really pass? Why would a majority Dem state vote it in?
Really.
How many electoral votes has George Bush gotten from Maine?
The Democrats were pushing this change for Colorado in 2004, where they would have picked up a few EVs.
If I were a Californian, I’d want to split my state into at least two states, because they really get ripped off when it comes to Senate representation.
I see this initiative as a "put up or shut up" to those pushing a nationwide popular vote instead of the EC. This method makes the vote closer to the popular vote, doesn't require a change to the Constitution, and reflects directly the way Electors are apportioned.
The big sticking point is that the Constitution gives sole power to assign the method of choosing electors to the state legislatures. I don't believe mandating it by initiative would be constitutional; at the least, it will be instantly challenged and head to the courts.
Possibly, because hardly any presidential candidates even bother to campaign in California during the general election campaign.
You assume that because a Dem is the Representative, that the Presidential vote will be the same. That isn't so; ticket splitting is common. Congressional races are far more likely to be decided on local issues, Presidential races on national issues.
Possibly, because hardly any presidential candidates even bother to campaign in California during the general election campaign.
______________________________________________
Makes sense, California’s power is not really exercised on a national stage with the current system. Republican politicians are hardly panting to consider California’s well being in lawmaking when we can’t get a Senator or Presidential vote out of CA. Dems can just take it for granted. So CA has their numbers in the House and that’s it. Could be more powerful politically with the change.
Only the elites with their money are courted in CA.
They’d have to REALLY step up, because now they just have to have serious vote fraud in one or two districts in heavily populated areas where it’s harder to detect.
The Dems understand that although there are numerous realistic scenarios in which the Republicans win the White House without winning California, there are NO realistic scenarios in which the Dems win without California.
Colorado is a 9 EV state. There are only four possible outcomes of a prorated distribution with 7 congressional districts and 2 Senate EV's to the winner:
-PJ
It doesn’t do away with the “winner take all” approach. It just divides the regions into finer granularity.
The concept that helps our Republic is the fact that at some point, and with some granularity, getting 51% of the vote is all the good you can get from that group of people. You have to move on and garner support elsewhere, which causes the President to have broader appeal.
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.