Electoral College reform: Have you heard what's happening in California?

Question

A group was given permission to start collecting signatures to qualify a measure for the June ballot. The proposed change would award 1 electoral college vote to the winner of each congressional district with the winner getting the other two votes (total electors is equal to the states number of representatives to the House plus it's two senators).

As with 47 other states (Maine and Nebraska being the exception), California awards all of it's electoral votes to the winner of the statewide election.

Had this been the law in 2004, 22 of the states 55 electoral votes would have gone to Bush with 33 going to Kerry (instead of Kerry getting all 55).

Link to story from San Francisco Chronicle: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/09/06/MNA6RVOC0.DTL&type=politics

I have advocated just such a change since well before the 2000 election. However, I'm troubled by this proposal because it would only affect California.

I will say this: all the smaller states better pry this doesn't pass because if it does, the candidates will spend much of their time in California rather than writing it off as a blue state and focusing their efforts in more contested regions.

Dave: apparently you don't live in California. When it comes to Presidential elections, we are virtually ignored by all the candidates. They come here for token visits and to raise money, but they spend little time actually campaigning. The republican's know it's virtually a lost cause and try to make up the votes elsewhere and the democrats simply consider California in the bag. As a result, the largest state in the union with over 10% of the country's population and arguably the most important economy, is largely ignored. Our issues aren't on the table and the candidates don't really care what we have to say.

aspiring_paranormal: I generally agree with your point; however, this is basically a states rights thing. The electoral college was written into the Constitution by the founding fathers and they intended that each of the several states would hold their own elections to select electors who would them come together to vote for the President. Any real change would probably require a Constitutional amendment.

The reason the courts haven't gotten involved with how electors are selected is because this is something specifically left up to the states by the Constitution (Article II, section 1, paragraph 2).

Dave again: You can hardly compare campaign stops in Maine and Nebraska with stops in California. Maine and Nebraska have a total of 9 electoral votes between them. That means a stop in one of those states is about trying to pickup 2-3 out of 270 needed. California has 55 electors. Even if you figured California only had 15 districts that were actually in play, that 15 votes is more than ~40 other states. That isn't insignificant.

Answer 1

Its rigging the 2008 election, and should not go foward. The right, and left that belive in freedom and democracy in California will defeat this idea. Turn America into Mexico style goverment where one party rules for 70 years, and no thank you. Repubilcians should be ashamed of themshevles thinking of this idea it undermine democracy, and puts at stake the legitimacy of goverment. Defeat the measure to slipt up electoral college in California. The reason its will rig the 2008 election. All states should be winner take all system, and Nebraksa or Maine shoud revert thier systems back to it. Slipting up electoral college votes will lead to gerrymandering, and other dirty tactics to win elections not by consent of the people, but redrawing the rules to favor one side.

Answer 2

Not logical.

Years ago, the states realized the President get elected by the electoral votes. Therefore the states electoral votes would be most effective if they give them all to one guy or the other. If it is WIN ALL or LOSE ALL, they can not afford to ignore a state.

Lets suppose a state has 40 electoral votes. What good would it do to give 20 to one guy and 20 to the other guy? That would effectively render that state as a non-player in the election.

Now lets assume California does as you say. So now the guys running for president are going to figure the vote in California is going to be split. So why fight for that state if all they can pick up is ONE or TWO electoral votes? They both will figure it is not worth the fight and they will go to states where they can pick up ALL the votes or lose ALL the votes.

If California does as you suggest, it will be a minor player in the election just like Maine and Nebraska are and for the same reason.

If you do not believe me, look at the last five Presidential elections. How many stops did the candidates make in MAINE and NEBRASKA compared to other states?

Answer 3

There is a much better proposal which has already been enacted into law in Maryland. If passed by enough states, it would effectively move the country to a popular vote system without a constitutional amendment. - Last year, in California, it the proposal was approved by both houses of the legislature, but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it. The proposal would not necessarily benefit either party, but it would prevent a few swing states like Florida from picking the next president. - There is a move in California to put this alternate proposal on the ballot to compete with the Republican sponsored proposal.

Answer 4

There must be a federal standard in regards to the Electoral College. I think it's ridiculous that the states want to award electoral votes in different ways. I don't care if it's Maine, California or Nebraska. Every states should have to award their electoral votes in the exact same way. We are talking about national elections here. Why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled on this? What are they waiting for? This just makes the electoral college even more of a joke.

Answer 5

G'day Justin H,

Thank you for your question.

This would change the electoral calculus considerably. If California adopted it, you would probably see other states go the same way.

It shows the need for the United States to have federal electoral legislation covering the conduct of elections. It is the fact that you have Federal elections run according to State and local electoral law rather than have one set of electoral legislation covering Federal elections that makes US elections the dogs breakfasts that they currently are. There should also be a non-partisan electoral commission running things.

In the longer run, the adoption of this system across the US would lead to more presidential elections being brokered in the House of Representatives as it would be harder to achieve a majority in the electoral college.

It will be interesting to see how this works.

Regards

Answer 6

Even though I'm a Republican and, to your point, see this as a win-win for Republicans, I think it's plain wrong. Consider that of your 53 (I'm assuming) districts, I'm guessing that 20 are solid Republican and 30 are solid Democrat, meaning that -- tops -- five electoral votes are in play. That will put California on par with... us here in Utah!

I'm figuring the same pattern exists in many states with a few concentrated urban areas (e.g., Ohio, Florida, Illinois) where a majority of the districts are solidly in one camp or the other, and, nationally, maybe sixty or seventy would be in play.

Hmmm... not sure where I'm going with this, but it strikes me as a problem.

Answer 7

Well, prior to 2000 I would've loved this measure. I think this is something that should be nationwide. But my issue with it is the same as yours.

However, even Governor Arnold agrees with us. It seems that this measure was largely passed by republicans (since Cali usually swings left). He called it a "loser's mentality." I think thats just unfair and is kind of reminiscent of gerrymandering.

Answer 8

well look at this way if all states were to do this the electoral would reflect much more of the populations vote throughout -republicans win some southern states at thin margins to. so if the majority of states did it we would no longer have red and blue states but united states with small pockets here and there with blue and red

Answer 9

I live in a smaller state and I am for getting rid of the electoral college I think we should have a populace vote here. We get no love from the candidates.

Answer 10

Agreed. All of the states should adopt this change...not Cali alone.