Republicans in CA trying to win the presidential election a little early
Posted on July 31st, 2007 at 1:52 pm by Ethan BoivieRepublicans in California are working hard to win the 2008 election a year early. A ballot proposal is in the works that, if passed, would split the largest of the electoral vote prizes.
Republicans are pushing to put the Presidential Election Reform Act to California voters. If PERA qualifies for a ballot, and subsequently gets passed, the state’s electoral votes would be split (a la Maine and Nebraska), so rather than the familiar winner-take-all scenario, one vote would be awarded to the winner of each of the state’s 53 Congressional districts. In a very blue state, this change would, in effect, pull approximately 20 electoral college votes from the Democratic candidate, and may very well ensure that a Republican will win the 2008 presidency.
Republicans claim that such a change would force candidates to campaign in the nation’s most populous state, while Democrats feel this would rig the election before it begins. Obviously, Republicans will push hard to get it on the ballot, and Democrats will fight to keep it off. Though it may not be likely to be approved, PERA could very well cost precious Democratic resources, but Democrats are certainly willing go to des-PERA-te measures to ensure that this proposal does not pass.
22 Comments
Leave a comment
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Or why not give all electoral votes to the canidate that wins the majority of counties in that state.
Looking at the last electoral map that would have given a landslide to the Republicans.
because that would horribly skew the numbers, since some counties have many more people than others in them. There’s a reason why so many counties were red and California was still blue. More people still voted for Democrats.
Because, in a democracy, the number of people who vote for a candidate is more important than where the voters live. Crazy idea right? Let the majority actually decide the election, not just change the rules so you win?
Let’s remember that Cali isn’t as blue as you might think. Pull out the ridiculously liberal city of LA (63%-36% for Kerry) and it becomes a VERY competitive state, one which Bush wins.
San Francisco: 83% for Kerry
Los Angeles: 63% for Kerry
Liberal yes, but ridiculously liberal? Not so sure about that one.
San Francisco: 83% for Kerry
Los Angeles: 63% for Kerry
Liberal yes, but ridiculously liberal? Not so sure about that one.
If this movement was really about creating a fairer system, they would follow the model of the National Popular Vote
http://nationalpopularvote.com/
The idea is to pass a similar bill in many states, but write it so it doesn’t go into effect until a majority of states pass it. Avoiding a situation such as you describe.
Then split the electorial votes. That way LA and SF don’t screw up the rest of the state.
pull out LA? in other words, pull out the largest city, the largest single segment of the population, and Bush wins. That’s like saying that if you don’t count the South, the Democrats have every election locked up
Hey Troy while your at it, why don’t you just ban all Democrats from voting, it will make what you want easier to happen.
It is statements like that make me wonder why I register Republican sometimes.
I really hope that was a joke.
I always find it funny that those who defend “one man, one vote” tend to do so much less when the opposite might favor their side.
Even if this were to make it to the California initiative ballot–which I doubt–it won’t pass. It is too convoluted for California voters; GOP, Democrat, Independent or Decline to State alike.
Also it goes contrary to the fairness most California voters believe in regarding a vote counting as a vote. One person, One vote and the like.
California voters kill many more initiatives put on the ballot vs. the number they approve. They are a very efficient voters. This crosses party lines often. The Governor (Arnold) learned this well when he had all the initiatives he put on the ballot shot down in that same year. The experience changed him politically, which he admits. Even brags about.
It isn’t even a story in California–not even on a zero car-chase, lack of a major fire, no sign of a celebrity driving drunk slow, slow kind of a news day. It is going nowhere.
###
Seriously, just split up the electoral votes. Those for LA and SF will of course go to the Democrats. The rest of the state will go Republican, which is why they are so upset at the thought.
Troy, I’m sure you were all for the one man, one vote mission in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote. The point of election is for people to choose a candidate, not for a Republican to automatically win by whatever system you contrive at the time.
Either do away with electorial votes altogether, or spread the electorial votes more equally…one electorial vote/10 million people.
I think apportionment would be an excellent idea. In 2004, it would have given Bush 3 of Mass.’s 12 electoral votes.
A side effect is that it causes candidates to actually campaign in your state instead of writing you off as ‘locked up’. The Mass. GOP just voted to apportion delegates instead of winner-take-all, which had been the system since 1996.
Mitt’s opponents liked it, because it gave them a shot. Mitt’s supporters liked it because it avoided a nightmare where a Rudy won narrowly, and Mitt had NO home state delegates!
I would like to see apportionemtnof electoral votes nationwide - not county by county, but based on popular vote for the state, not county-by-county (imagine New York COUNTY?).
I’d just like to see it a bit more fair. If all of a states electoral votes aren’t locked up that means you have to campaign the entire state.
I’d like to see a map of how 2004 would have looked like if each states electoral votes was independently awarded.
In my opinion, if you’re going to reform the electoral college, you might as well just get rid of it. Either have the citizens of the United States directly elect the president or keep it the way it is where the president is essentially elected by the states. To have each state’s electoral votes split up by counties will only make things more complicated- and the more complicated things are the more likely things will get screwed up. Sure, it might make things more competitive (and not just for Republicans- there are plenty of Democratic counties in the south), but in the end, I don’t think it would really do much good. I say keep it the way it is.
Hey Troy - when are the candidates supposed to find the time in just two years to visit every state?
Nader did it.
50 States in 24 months means you can vist every state twice.
That’s two states a month. Sounds very reasonable to me.
all this talk of portioning out the votes by counties still ignores the numbers. These counties are often tiny. The fact is that if we did this, Bush would have won by a huge landslide in 2000 in the electoral vote, despite losing the popular vote. The current system is closer to representing the will of the people, and will remain so unless counties are given electoral votes based on population, which would mean a structural change of the entire electoral system so massive it would be difficult to imagine why we wouldn’t simply abolish the electoral college anyways. Electoral votes could be portioned out by overall percentages in the state, but to do it by counties is ludicrous and clearly an unfair and unrepresentative way of doing things, as the system stands.