| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| GOP Looking to Split California Electoral Baby |
| 2007-09-19 |
| This is from Celcius D.C. The Ruminator is ruminating ... *snip* In late July, the law firm of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, acting under the direction of its managing partner Thomas W. Hiltachk, filed California ballot Initiative No. 07-0032—the Presidential Election Reform Act—which is aimed at ending the practice of granting all fifty-five of California’s electoral votes to the statewide winner. Under the initiative, should it pass, California would apportion two electoral votes to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner of each of its 53 congressional districts. This would mean that the 2008 Republican nominee would now have a shot at picking up in the neighborhood of 20 electoral votes in California in 2008 rather than zero. Such an electoral pickup would be roughly the equivalent of winning Ohio in 2004. For those of you out there who might be inclined to argue that California Republicans are engaging in a Fantasia-like powerplay and that this initiative will never pass muster once California voters get wind of this, think again. Recent polling indicates that a sizeable portion of Californians are in favor of the initiative. |
| Posted by:eltoroverde |
| #9 Maine and Nebraska have been doing this for years. I don't think they have actually ever split, though. This is not proportional voting; if you get 50%+1 in every district, you get all the EVs. |
| Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds 2007-09-19 22:54 |
| #8 Nimble, it would take a constitutional amendment to go to direct election of the president, an amendment that would be fought to the death by the small states. If big states like California, Texas, Florida, etc. want to allocate their electoral votes on some system other than winner take all, that should not affect how Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, et. al. allocate theirs. |
| Posted by: RWV 2007-09-19 21:46 |
| #7 Good point Nimble but is this worse than Dems running the US? |
| Posted by: jds 2007-09-19 20:16 |
| #6 I'd like to see some other states go that way too, like Michigan and Illinois. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2007-09-19 18:30 |
| #5 If you think this ends in anything less than the popular election of the president, you're naive. Resisting the first step is the most important. Once the idea of proportionality creeps in, direct election is inevitable and another balance is removed from what appears more and more to be a house of cards. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-19 18:18 |
| #4 It doesn't dilute the power of small states at all. The Constitution provides (Article II, Section 1, as amended) that a state shall elect its Electors as it may direct, and if a state wishes to divide its votes up by congressional district, so be it. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-09-19 17:43 |
| #3 Two for the state is two too late to justify the existence of the state as a single entity in the federal system. There is no need for redundant governmental layers if they want to make it a popular vote. The 49 United State plus something less. Although there are some governmental subunits north and south of the border who might like become number 50. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-09-19 17:33 |
| #2 It dilutes the power of the small states. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-19 17:20 |
| #1 It puts California back in play in the primaries and the actual election, jerks the state right out of the Democrats paws, and distributes the electoral candidate votes in a much more fair and equitable fashion. What's not to like? |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-09-19 16:49 |