California electoral plan would split the state (like Maine Plan)

[Perky]

Calif. Plan Could Sway 2008 Race

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD
Associated Press Writer



LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A Republican-backed ballot proposal could split left-leaning California between the Democratic and GOP nominees, tilting the 2008 presidential election in favor of the Republicans.

California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections - the largest single prize in the nation. But a prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the ballot that would award the statewide winner only two electoral votes.

The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.

California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change - if it qualifies for one of two primary ballots next year and is approved by voters - would mean that a Republican would be positioned the following November to snatch 20 or more electoral votes in GOP-leaning districts.

That's a number equal to winning Ohio.

The so-called Presidential Election Reform Act is being pushed by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer in a Sacramento firm that represents the California Republican Party and has worked with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He did not return phone messages left Monday at his office

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CALIFORNIA_VOTES?SITE=CATOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-07-31-09-54-06

I actually like this idea....but it has to be done in all states. In California,,, it probably helps when there is a moderat Republican and hurts when there is someone very conservative.

[bemildred]

1. Ahnuld vetoed Koza's national popular vote proposal.

This is an attempt to head that off.

[suffragette]

2. "That's a number equal to winning Ohio."

That is an interesting line. Does it portend that California will be the Florida or Ohio of 2008? This bears close watching since if that is the plan then even if this effort fails, they'll likely try to put something else in place.

[bryant69]

3. Actually this would help Republicans no matter who it is

Orange County would vote for Atilla the hun if they got the chance, and there are a few other communites like that. Currently their votes automatically go to the Democrat if the rest of the state goes that way.

That said, I'm not sure this is a bad idea if, as you say, implemented on a national scale.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Perky]

6. In theory, it ought to play out the same as a congressional majority

The two votes for winning the state is a crap shoot.

[krispos42]

4. Electoral votes hould be apportioned by percentages of votes

However, until it's done in all states in the same election, it's a blatant republican vote-getter. Florida and Texas aren't doing this to give Democrats some electoral votes, are they?


Oh, and we need instant runoff voting.

[TahitiNut]

5. It puts gerrymanders on steroids wherever enacted.

If, somehow, a state can pack all votes for one side of the ballot into a minimal number of districts then the other side of the ballot gains not only Congressional advantage but Presidential advantage disproportional to the statewide support.

Please take note that this is COMPLETELY different from 'proportional' voting. Rather than casting electoral votes in proportion to the statewide votes, it compartmentalizes votes and wipes out minority votes in every district.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Wow. That's a GREAT Idea! ...NOT. And If experience is any guide, they'll get it on the ballot by

telling people they're signing to get health coverage for sick infants or something.

[Perky]

8. The problem with thecurrent situation is that CA is 20% of what you need

to win the electroal vote. I think that is too much ig you only win the state by 1%

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Sorry, that's the way it works. If we're really interested in fair representation, we should abolish

the U.S. Senate.

33 Million Californians- 1/10th of the Population- only control the same 1/50th of the U.S. Senate that the 400,000 residents of Wyoming do. What that does is skew the U.S. Government FAR MORE conservative than the majority of citizens are, and we're seeing the unfortunate results of that as we speak.

Do you really think, if voters in California and other populous, heavily urban states like New York had the power in the government that we deserve, the GOP would be as serious as they are about pushing an agenda of criminalizing abortion and contraception? No, they wouldn't.

[Perky]

12. I do think that senators elected by the entire state is

a bit of an geographic anachronism.....

But there is value in having two houses...and small urban states in the north east have to fins balance with the large, rural states in the west. The grand compromise of two houses still makes sens in my mind because the Senate is positioned as being far more deliberative than the House.. and is not as prone to the passions of the moment. It is an important check on runaway legislation. Like ummm say the ummmm Patriot Act....LOL (it is good in theory at least)


I do think however... that because Judicial appointments are unlike ambassadors and cabinet members because they survive the presidency, that there ought to be a 60% threshold not for cloture but for Senate approval. The current situation disproportionately favors the small states who it might be argued are numerically less impacted by judicial decisions.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. The same logic that gave us the Senate gave us the Winner-Take-All Electoral College.

Tell you what; if all states adopt this plan for divvying up the EC votes (or we abolish it altogether and just directly elect the president by a simple majority) AND we change the U.S. Senate so that every U.S. Voter has an equally proportional representation in the Gov't, then I'll support this idea.

As you say about the Patriot Act, the idea behind the Senate makes sense, but it hasn't really been functioning that way lately, has it?

[Perky]

22. The Ony way to accomplishe the latter I think would be

in senatorial districts whci cross state boundaries..to even out the feographic problem of sifferently poplulated states

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Anyway, you're not a Californian, so whether or not you think it's a "problem"

it's up to US to decide whether it is, or not. And I hate to break it to you, but even with the inevitable misrepresentation campaign that these GOP assclowns always use for their bullshit ballot initiatives, I give this absolutely ZERO chance of being implemented.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Perky]

11. Oh I agree it is never going to get throught the assembly.

But by the smae token. I am of the view thatthe artificial cap of 435 Represenatives is unconstitutional to begin with. One man-one-vote does dnot work whent a single rep represents 500,ooo Wyomingans an on represents over 700,000 in California.

If all districs had the same population, we would have about 600 reps and you cold more easily move to this type pf solution.

[AllegroRondo]

19. even more lopsided when applied to electoral votes

Wyoming, with 500,000 people, gets 3 electoral votes, or 1 per 164,000 people

California, with 33,871,000 people, gets 55 electoral votes, or 1 per 615,000 people.

the sparsely populated red states already have much more representation than average.

[Perky]

21. The Electoral college is slightly different than Representatives

because their are 100 more electors than congreesman. It puts the numbers closer together but the discrepancy in population per rep is substantial.

[yellowcanine]

13. Could they could pull this off in time for 2008 election? I would think it would have to be in

place by this fall.....

[Perky]

15. In theory you could do this in Nov'08 as referendum.

The thing that is going on here is that they are trying to figure a way to increase GOP turnout.. No one thinks that the GOP can win the state....but being able to pick off districts has value.

Lesislation wold never pass but a referendum has a shot.

The poison pil;l will probably be a gerrymandering amendment that would split key GOP districts.

I doubt much would ever come of this.

[Sapere aude]

14. Why not use the total popular vote and award all to the winner. Oh we do that already.

The repukes can't win an honest election.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

16. I like that idea. But let's try it first in Texas. Then in Florida and Georgia.

Then, a few decades later, we can start trying that with a Democratic state. Like, say, Rhode Island.

[Popol Vuh]

17. It would be fun to watch a counter suit

And I'd be all for it. Using his same arguments I'd love to see the majority vote of the whole nation win. If that happened I don't think we'd ever see another Republican President, at least not in our life times less election fraud.

[Perky]

18. The makeup of theHouse is a good barometer of how the Presidency would go

It would still be pretty tight.