From the “Electionline” column in Friday’s (8/17/07) USA Today we find that there is a proposed ballot initiative in California that would change the way the state’s electoral votes are divided up during a presidential election.
The current method, a method used in all but two states (Maine and Nebraska), is the “winner-take-all” method, where the candidate with the most votes walks away with all of the state’s electoral votes. The proposed method would award two electoral votes to the winner of the overall popular vote and allocate the other electoral votes to the candidates according to the results in each of the state’s congressional districts.
In general, California Democrats are opposed to changing the allocation of electoral votes from the present system while the Republicans are in favor of the change. Each faction has taken their position based on the fact that there are 20 Congressional districts in the state that normally vote Republican; knowing that, the rational behind the dispute is obvious — electoral votes from 20 congressional districts could swing an election.
This ballot initiative is the brain child of Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer for the California Republican Party — while he is organizing his forces to collect the 434,000 valid signatures needed to put his initiative before the voters in June of 2008, the Democratic opposition is organizing to raise millions of dollars to put together an advertising campaign that will convince voters that they are better off sticking with the old system. But are they really better off with the current system?
An interesting fact brought to light by a Bloomberg report on this subject (linked below) is that the Democrats, however much they rant and rave about those opportunistic Republicans, have themselves attempted to change the system in other states. In 2006, the Democratic party attempted (unsuccessfully) to do the exact same thing in Colorado (where they saw the opportunity to gain electoral votes) and they are reportedly considering a future attempt in North Carolina where 15 electoral votes are up for grabs. So it appears that both sides in this issue (as in all political issues) are doing their best to manipulate the system to their own advantage — that is expected. But while the parties are maneuvering for position they seem to be forgetting that the object of a presidential election is to, as accurately as possible, determine who “the people” want as their next president. As I see it, the proposed system, a system that would determine the distribution of electoral votes based on Congressional districts, would actually be a truer reflection of the people’s choice.
The Electoral College system was created by our founding Fathers so that small states would have a more equal voice in selecting a president; this proposed California ballot initiative, it would seem to me, reflects that wisdom by giving allowing each small voting block (each Congressional district) a more equal voice in the final outcome of the states presidential choice. Every state should, in fact, be looking at this or at other ways to more accurately reflect their citizen’s real choices in Presidential elections; and if it means butting heads with one or the other political party, then so be it.
News Links:
Bloomberg.com: California Democrats Gird for Fight Over Electoral Vote Measure
Arizona Daily Star: California initiative proposed to divvy up electoral votes
From the Blogosphere:
Political Lunacy: The Good, The Bad and The Uuug-Lee
Democratic Talk Radio Blog: Democrats Target 2008 Calif. Vote Plan
News and commentary by: Whymrhymer can also be found at the My View from the Center and at The American Chronicle Family of Journals
Loading ...
2 users commented in " The People’s Choice vs. The Party’s Choice "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI strongly disagree with this proposal — whether it is done in California, North Carolina, Texas or Illinois. Its main value will be to showcase the far superior approach provided by the National Popular Vote plan that has been adopted in my state of Maryland. Here are two examples of how the congressional district system breaks down:
1) Congressional districts are rarely competitive. In California, for example, only three of the states’ 53 districts will be close in 2008 in a nationally competitive election. Gerrymandering is a minor factor in this general lack of competition — the bigger one is an underlying tilt in most areas.
2) It is intrinsically partisan. When done in “spectator states” in which the minority party will only win electoral votes because of it, motivations for doing it are nearly always going to be partisan. If done nationally, it will distort the popular vote in close elections even more than the current system — in 2000, for example, Bush would have won by 38 more electoral votes even while losing the popular vote to Gore.
For more on the problems with congressional district allocation, see our new report called “Wrong Way Reforms for Allocating Electoral Votes” at:
http://fairvote.org/?page=1786&articlemode=showspecific&showarticle=2741
Finally, please re-read your history of why the electoral college was put in place and the goals of some of the founders in doing it. Many expected it to help small states primarily through the mechanism of their power when the election has to be decided in the U.S. House — most thought that Congress would have to pick the winner in most presidential races, and there each state would have one vote regardless of size. But James Madison and others already were ready for a national popular vote — 220 years later, we absolutely are ready. See http://www.nationalpopularvote.com
I agree that the motivations for going to an allocation of votes by Congressional District are partisan but I don’t see where that makes the outcome unfair — it is at least an attempt to get election results that reflect the will of the people. “Partisan” is not an intrinsically dirty word (but I admit I use it like that quite often).
The National Popular Vote plan, as described in the page you linked, does seem to be an even more fair system but, excuse me for being pessimistic, it appears to be something that will be a long, long time coming — if it ever does. It will be great if it happens but when you count on the cooperation of 50 states and the District to implement any plan you have something far less than a sure thing.
I wish you the best of luck — anything that brings the actual sentiments of the majority in line with the outcome is a good thing in my book.
As to a history of the Electoral College: one of the key reasons a National popular vote was rejected was, according to this one of many sources: The Origin and History of The Electoral College is because the Framers felt that, at best, “the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.”
Leave A Reply