California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
You've got to love the Golden State: formerly a national leader, more recently a national laggard, and these days seemingly obsessed with marginalia.
One such piece of political lint is the Electoral College, which has not sat well on the West Coast ever since the 2000 election. In the decade since, California has been on the front lines of the push for a national popular vote, most recently through an attempt to join an interstate compact that would award the popular vote winner California’s electoral votes regardless of the outcome in the state (Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill to join the compact in 2006).
Now another plan for presidential election reform is coming out of the Golden State – but this one may find liberals who decry the current process as insufficiently representative over a barrel:
Secretary of State Debra Bowen today cleared conservative activist Ted Costa to start collecting petition signatures for a proposed ballot measure that, if approved by voters, would split California’s presidential Electoral College votes starting next year.
California right now is a winner-take-all state: Whichever candidate wins the Golden State’s popular vote gets all 55 of its Electoral College votes. California’s votes went to the Republican presidential nominees from 1968 through 1988, and to the Democratic nominees since then.
But Costa – perhaps best known for helping to launch the recall effort that eventually replaced Gov. Gray Davis with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger – wants California to follow Maine and Nebraska’s lead in awarding most of the state’s Electoral College votes according to the popular vote in each Congressional District, so that some can go to one candidate and some to another. Both those states adopted this method in 2008.
In tiny Maine and Nebraska, the split system creates very little in the way of national implications. In California, however, where 19 of the state’s seats in the U.S. House are held by Republicans, the difference could be profound.
Personally, I’m not big on reforming the Electoral College. I still think it serves a useful purpose (though in most elections it’s superfluous), even though its power has diminished significantly since it was first instituted. That being said, I’ll look forward to the Common Cause types telling us why California Republicans – perhaps the group most disenfranchised by the Electoral College – don’t deserve a shot at representation.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
The only way I see Moonbeam and the Democratic machine in California letting this come to pass is if they realize they are failing so spectacularly that even California Republicans can be competitive again. Not seeing it.
Dec '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
Never will happen. Without CA's EVs as a block, Democrats will never win the presidency again. Frankly, I'm wondering why people haven't discussed splitting California in the last few years. This might solve their budget woes in that they might be able to use the division to reorganize financially.
Jul '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
Looking at that map, I ponder how it is that people of similar political viewpoints gravitate to the same geographic areas.
Why are liberals clumped along the coast of California? It isn't a racial thing, because the coast is predominantly white. In Marin County, where I live, I hardly ever see a black person and the Hispanic population is far lower than the counties inland. Yet we vote further to the left than, say, Philadelphia or Houston.
We see this sort of uneven political distribution all across America. Some of it is explained by racial demographics, of course, and some cities with big universities usually vote Democratic.
But often, I just don't understand it. Why are Oklahoma and Idaho so conservative? Why is Rhode Island so far to the left?
Anyone?
Edited on Feb 3, 2011 at 5:29pmMay '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
The electoral college wasn't necessarily intended to be a winner-take-all system. It was a federal system where each state could send electors as its legislature pleased. I see no problem with California splitting its vote, per se.
Unless, of course, it leads to a national trend where people begin to think it's inherently unfair to choose electors any way but proportionally.
Dec '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
One of the great advantages to the EC system is that it bottles up corruption. Dead people voting in Chicago doesn't effect Texas.
Aug '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
It's where all the great beach-front property is...
Aug '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
The thing that always strikes me about splitting the electoral votes proportionally is that it seems like one step removed from a popular vote. I make no claims as to whether winner-take-all or divvying it up by district is the right way to do it. Nor do I know enough about the Electoral College historically to know what the founders would have thought.
I do get nervous when people try to make these changes in order to give their side the advantage. It cuts both ways.
Jul '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
By the way, California also gets two electoral votes - as do all states - for their Senatorial seats. What would happen with those?
May '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
Great news. I wish them luck.
Sep '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
Get Murphy on that right away,. He'll fix it.
Oct '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
Troy Senik:
Personally, I’m not big on reforming the Electoral College. I still think it serves a useful purpose (though in most elections it’s superfluous), even though its power has diminished significantly since it was first instituted. That being said, I’ll look forward to the Common Cause types telling us why California Republicans – perhaps the group most disenfranchised by the Electoral College – don’t deserve a shot at representation. ·
You aren't serious are you? It's power has not changed. The President is chosen via the Electoral College. If anything it is the popular vote that is superfluous. What has changed is that with the winner take all systems in the larger States, the scales have been tipped in favor of the Blue States, those with the greater population densites.
I would like to see the votes in large states divided. It somewhat diminishes the power of the large states in determining the outcome of the election.
May '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
Liberals tax the crap out of the productive to give to the unproductive. That draws more unproductive people to the state. The state makes sure the unproductive aren't "disenfranchised" and make sure they vote for more politicians who desire wealth transfer. It's a vicious cycle.
Conservative governments attract business and productive people go where the jobs are.
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
Just the prospect of the California electoral map displaying all that red is causing a thrill to run up my leg. Finally...something in common with Chris Matthews.
Jan '11
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
It's up to the States to decide how they want to cast their Electorals. I would have no problem with the proposed process. I agree with AmishDude in that this would localize corruption and confusion. Imagine if Florida instituted this system in 2000. Instead of arguing over all of Florida's votes, only Dade and Broward counties would be in question. I think this would have been preferable to what happened.
And I think Steven is right in that this is just a step removed from a popular vote, in a way that makes your vote more powerful in the event that you lose a state-wide popular vote. Instead of competing with the entire state of voters of millions, you would only have to compete with a few thousand. The stakes are much lower, just one Electoral, instead of all of them, but I think it would improve franchising overall.
Jan '11
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
That's disturbing on a multitude of levels.
Oct '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
Steven Potter: The thing that always strikes me about splitting the electoral votes proportionally is that it seems like one step removed from a popular vote. I make no claims as to whether winner-take-all or divvying it up by district is the right way to do it. Nor do I know enough about the Electoral College historically to know what the founders would have thought.
I do get nervous when people try to make these changes in order to give their side the advantage. It cuts both ways. · Feb 3 at 6:34pm
The Constitution is a Federalist document, and therefore undemocratic. The founders wanted the Executive to be the President of the United States, not of the American People. The founders wanted the election to be by the representatives of the people of the States, not the nation as a whole. They were fearful of the democratic "general will".
Oct '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
Liberals concentrate in coastal, urban areas for several reasons.
First, the coastal trade allows them to live beyond their means, economically. In San Francisco, the people can vote to shower "the poor" with tons of money--and somehow avoid bankruptcy. At a fundamental level, many of these people have never had to live within a budget constraint. They've never seen jobs migrate to cheaper areas, or witnessed decline (that they cared about).
Basically, there's too much moral hazard in coastal cities, so people can believe whatever feels good--with seemingly no consequences.
Second, in large cities I think there's a natural inclination towards big government, since people rely on the city government a lot more. Public transportation is vital in many big cities, and dense populations makes crime more prevalent and harder to avoid--which I think leads people to rely on government more then individual initiative.
Jan '11
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
Kenneth:
Why are liberals clumped along the coast of California?
Anyone? · Feb 3 at 5:27pm
Edited on Feb 03 at 05:29 pm
I think it has to do with having tons of money leading to liberalism. You want to do good with your power. You've donated to charities and pushed forward some cause that you found worthwhile. If it stopped there, we would say that you were a normal person who cared.
But you probably didn't amass that money minding your own business. You were probably the boss at some company and got used to having people obey you. And that's when you get your great idea. You'll save your money while still being a good citizen by making other people pay for your worthwhile causes (You didn't get rich by giving it away...). Not only are you a good person for fighting for your awesome cause, you're making good people out of others too. Congratulations! Now you're a liberal.
And you live in those places because they're really nice. Poor people probably can't afford to live there. I have not known of any famous wealthy conservative enclaves.
I_found_a_way_to_beat_the_word_limit.
Jul '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
fullfrontal
Kenneth:
Why are liberals clumped along the coast of California?
Anyone? · Feb 3 at 5:27pm
Edited on Feb 03 at 05:29 pm
I have not known of any famous wealthy conservative enclaves.
Feb 3 at 7:48pm
Palm Springs and, for a time, Carmel - where Clint Eastwood was mayor.
Jul '10
Re: California to Ensure a Republican President in 2012?
The Founders' concept of how the Electoral College would function was radically different than what we have ended up with. The notion was to allow the Electoral College to serve as a corrective if circumstances required, in part owing to much longer 18th Century communication times. For example, if Thomas and Aaron are tied for President but Aaron is in trouble for shooting a Treasury Secretary and some Texas adventure, the College can go with the Sage of Monticello. Didn't actually happen that way, of course, except that last part.
One of the most interesting developments of the 2000 election was this sudden threat that delegates might vote contrary to their commitment under the usual process. That would have been very much in line with the Founders thinking, but was staved off in part by the threats of other delegates to correct the voting back if necessary to achieve the "normal" result.
Winner take all has dominated because it gives winning the state, and therefore wooing the state, greater importance.