There’s a old joke, I love, BTW, because its a fill in the blank. “Did you hear that Laboratory Scientists have replaced Laboratory Rats with BLANK (let’s insert the word “Republicans” here)?
Why?
“Because there are some things that even Rats won’t do.”
 And Republican Lawyers, the masters of ballot measure titles that mean the exact opposite of what they say are at it again. See the NY Times editorial below that explains their newest trick. We need to fight this. This is an EVIL ballot measure designed to change the rules of the game.
ÂÂ
Stacking the Electoral Deck
California currently gives all 55 of its electoral votes  the biggest electoral college prize in the nation  to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. Virtually all states use this winner-take-all method. The California initiative, which could go to a vote in June, would instead give the 2008 presidential candidates one electoral vote for every Congressional district that they win, with an additional two electoral votes going to whoever got the most votes statewide. (Democrats appear to have backed off from plans to try just as anti-democratic a trick in North Carolina, which is good.)
The net result of the California initiative would be that if the Democratic candidate wins in that state next year, which is very likely, the Republican candidate might still walk away with 20 or more of the state’s electoral votes. The initiative, backed by a shadowy group called Californians for Equal Representation, is being promoted as an effort to more accurately reflect the choices of the state’s voters, and to force candidates to pay more attention to California, which is usually not in play in presidential elections. It is actually a power grab on behalf of Republicans.
The Electoral College should be done away with, but in the meantime, any reforms should improve the system, not make it worse. If California abandons its winner-take-all rule while red states like Texas do not, it will be hard for a Democratic nominee to assemble an Electoral College majority, even if he or she wins a sizable majority of the popular vote. That appears to be just what the backers of the California idea have in mind.
If voters understand that the initiative is essentially an elaborate dirty trick posing as reform, they are likely to vote against it. But judging by the misleading name of their organization, the initiative’s backers want to fool the public into thinking the change would make elections more fair. They are planning on putting it to a vote in June 2008, an election when there will be few other things on the ballot, and turnout is expected to be extremely low. This bad-faith initiative is yet another example of the ways in which referenda can be used for mischief and a reminder of why they are a bad way to resolve complex public-policy issues.
Opponents of the initiative announced yesterday that they are sponsoring their own, rival initiative, which would commit California to a national plan that aims to ensure that the winner of the national popular vote becomes president. That idea makes much more sense.
Leading Republicans, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have been silent about the initiative to split California’s electoral votes, but they should be speaking out against it. The fight isn’t about Republicans vs. Democrats. It is about whether to twist the nation’s system of electing presidents to give one party an unfair advantage. No principled elected official, or voter, of either party should support that.
See what I mean?
So while you are busy name calling and cut and pasting your cute little story together, were you too busy to neglect to mention the “national popular vote” ballot measure proposed by YOUR party?
Since republicans hold 19 congressional districts in California and a Republican presidentail candidate stands a good chance of winning those districts, do you really think it fair that all those are not counted?
Why should any candidate get all 55 electoral votes, esp if they loose the 19 congessional districts in question.
Talk about disenfranchised voters.
You also failed to mention a Field Poll that found a plurality of support for electoral vote change, including a virtual tie among Democratic voters, when poll respondents were given a bare bones description and asked, “Generally speaking, which method of allocating California’s electoral votes do you prefer – the current winner-take-all method or the proposed district-by-district method?”
I expect you to bash the Rep’s on this, but I also expect you to be honest and bash the Dem’s for an equally scummy move.
Thomas,
What would you say if this measure was put on the ballot in Texas, or Florida?
The point is, if every single state allocated their electoral votes based on who won in each congressional district, that would be fair.
But if one or two states have a lot of electoral votes do this, then yeah, its unfair.
Tom,
I think we can all agree that the Electoral College should be abolished. (Not that either of our Partys will EVER concede that ammendment change)
One of the aspects of the Electoral College is to produce a clear winner, hence the ‘winner take all’ proviso. It seems to me that the 10% margin of 2004 is pretty clear cut.
It is not in the interest of the majority of California Voters to have their impact on a Presidential race, or Congressional seniority diluted. It this is such a great idea – ALL of the states should employ, not just a few. Like term limits (which I believe should be enforced at the ballot box only) it should be a Constitutional Amendment, period.
Then again, Republicans do not have a good track record for upholding the Constitution since 2000. You guys prefer to change the rules to suit your own immediate goals, never the long term (such as Presidential Term Limits?)
You know Thomas, I love guys like you who fling mud and then bitch when someone hits you in the eye with mud pie. The move by the Democrats was a response to the ballot measure proposed by the Republicans. Did I miss something? Can only your side change the rules to benefit them and we can’t do anything?
If the change proposed for California were a national law that all states had to follow, then we’re electing national leaders with the same set of rules. Changing it one key state to give the equivelent of an Ohio to the Republicans (who trail Democrats in national registration) is an unfair fight.
And so you know, Bush won 22 Congressional districts in California in 2004; not sure how many he’d win today though.
Every time a Republican suggest redistricting reform, even if it costs their party seats, I know they know the deck is stack in their favor. And do not lecture me about disinfrachised voters until you own up for the caging of votes done by your party in 2004.
Any time the Repubs start talking about empowering voters I already know someone is about to get screwed. The last polls I read stated there is a barely a majority of approval which is bad news for an initiative.
Sorry. Hit the “send” key too quickly.
Next thing you know we’ll be seeing yet another move to ban burning the US flag. When the repubs need to deflect the nation away from their incompetence it is almost like clockwork.
That initiative might fly better if the districts were not gerrymandered.
Yeah! Screw what the people want!!!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/21/BAD7RM3GH.DTL&hw=electoral+democrats&sn=004&sc=683
Right Dan???
Oh come on D’anconia, just because the people want change, there is a right & wrong way to go about it….
Splitting EV might be a fair idea if done in EVERY state, not just CA….Funny, Republcians are NOT eager to split votes in Ohio, Florida, Texas, etc….They only want to split EV in a blue state – that’s why this proposal must be defeated….It’s not reform, it’s rigging…
Yes, the Democrats tried to do this in North Carolina, but unlike the Republicans in CA, at least the Democrats had the class & character to realize what they were doing was wrong & backed off the idea…..