Change In California Electoral Votes Not Likely
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
An initiative may be placed on the ballot in California to change the way the state allocates its Electoral Votes .
Some political pundits have noted excitedly that the change could add 20 Electoral Votes to the Republican column in Election 2008. However, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey confirms the common sense expectation that this change will not be approved by voters.
The proposal being pitched in California would award one Electoral Vote to the winner of each Congressional District along with two Electoral Votes for the statewide winner. In a theoretical sense, 45% of voters nationwide think that’s a good idea. Thirty percent (30%) disagree while 25% are not sure. However, even that tepid level of support dissipates when voters learn that a change in California could significantly increase the number of Republican Electoral Votes. Once that is factored into the equation, support drops to 31% and opposition increases to 43%.ÂÂ
It’s interesting to note that Republican support for the measure barely increases when told of the potential benefit to their own party. That may be due to a sense of fairness or a nagging realization that the same thing could happen in other states where the GOP would lose votes. Forty-five percent (45%) favor the concept in theory and 48% favor it after learning how it would impact the results in California. Among Democrats and unaffiliated voters, support plunges dramatically once the electoral implications of a change in California are explained.
Overall, 54% of voters would like to get rid of the Electoral College and have the winner of the popular vote become President. Thirty percent (30%) disagree. Democrats strongly support this approach while Republicans are evenly divided. Women are more enthusiastic about it than men.
Sixty-seven percent (67%) would favor a provision requiring the winner to get at least 40% of the popular vote. Just 17% disagree on that point.
While uncomfortable with change in the method of awarding Electoral Votes, voters are evenly divided as to whether it’s a good idea for the winner of a state to get all of that state’s Electoral Votes. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say it’s a good idea, 41% say it’s not and 21% are undecided.
A recent Rasmussen Reports survey found that voters believe it’s time for the two major political parties to change the way they nominate Presidential candidates. Other surveys have repeatedly found that just half the nation believes that our current approach to elections is fair to voters.
Field Poll shows Californians lean toward dividing electoral votes:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/21/BAD7RM3GH.DTL&hw=electoral+democrats&sn=004&sc=683
From your article:
“It’s interesting to note that Republican support for the measure barely increases when told of the potential benefit to their own party. That may be due to a sense of fairness or a nagging realization that the same thing could happen in other states where the GOP would lose votes. Forty-five percent (45%) favor the concept in theory and 48% favor it after learning how it would impact the results in California. Among Democrats and unaffiliated voters, support plunges dramatically once the electoral implications of a change in California are explained.”
I think it’s interesting that after being told about the effect on electoral votes, Democrat support for the proposal drops significantly while Republican support only rises by a few points.
That should tell you a lot about the difference in mentality between voters of both parties. After all, the proposal sounds fair the the majority of voters, but as soon as the Democrat wingers find out that it hurts their chances of winning elections, they think about it twice.
After all, fairness is great…..as long as it’s being fairer to you than the other side.
Right?
Who is pushing this issue? It isn’t Dems. The process trying to be altered has been in place for hundreds of years. It’s always worked to date, but now we are being told it is unfair.
No one is pushing this issue yet RHackett. It started as a non-partisan idea in other states and it’s become this beast in CA only because it sets the pace for the rest of the country.
The point to be made is that the vast majority of voters think that a proposal to divide electoral votes is a good idea, which would add fairness to the process. The CA Dems are fighting it because it would increase the chance of a Republican winning the Presidency next year, but I’m sure it would be a much different story in a Red state.
As far as this process that “has been in place for hundreds of years”, I agree, and I hope more Democrats keep that in mind when advocating for the erradication of the Electoral College.
I would be for this if it were the rule in ALL 50 states. The only reason no one cares about ME and NE is because there is a whopping nine votes between them. If this became the rule simultaneously in all 50 states it would lead the way to getting rid of the electoral college.
RHackett-
I can’t help but notice your inclination towards giving more power to the federal government. Do you believe in states’ rights?
We live in a Federalist society and you are advocating for Federal regulation regarding the personal choice of each state in allocating their electoral college votes.
I’ll keep that in mind the next time far left liberals are complaining about the FBI raiding pot plantations in California.
Just so we are clear: I am a Federalist and I am VERY much against the FBI raiding pot plantations in our state, but I am also VERY much against the federal government telling California how it can or cannot allocate its electoral votes.
Electoral votes are determined for usage in a federal election. I can’t say that supporting state’s rights vs federalism is an absolute. I determine my support on a case by case issue.
when electing for federal office, therer should be a federal standard. Split em up, keep em together. I don’t care as long as the playing field is level.
RHackett-
I’m sorry to hear that. I don’t see federalism as being a per-situation ideal.
Dan-
By your reasoning all states should have a primary, which we know is not the case. Are you against a state’s right to call a caucus?
From the US Constitution…
“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors…”
It seems to me that this ballot measure is unconstitutional. The supporters of this measure know that the Legislature would never switch to a congressional district-by-district apportionment, so they’re trying this backdoor move, which is a waste of the voter’s money and time.
Its always about changing the rules to benefit Republicans. Much muchwill this ballot measure cost us?
Oh please, are we really going to start talking about wasting the taxpayer’s $$ on initiatives?
I really don’t think you guys want to go down that road…
d’Anconia,
I think you missed the point. The Constitution says that apportionment of electoral votes is up to the state legislature. What is your answer to that?
I’m thinking watching the RNC waste millions on this initiative will be entertaining.
d’Anconia
You say you support States Rights – if that is the case, why did the Federal Government stop the count in Florida?
Back to the main point: The system has been winner take all because it benefits the majority of voters in that particular state. Why should CA dilute it’s electoral clout when TX and FL aren’t going to do it?
Kerry won by 10% in CA in ’04 – that is a pretty clear majority to me. What do the majority of Californians want?
Just a thought: Let’s imagine that the Reeps get their way on the dilution of Electoral votes – Lets now imagine Guliani winning the majority of CA voters. Hillary could be our next President because Rotten Rudy did not get all of the CA electors.
I am not sure the Reeps would like that outcome.
Actually, there is a better proposal on the table that grants all of California’s Electors to the candidate who wins the majority of the votes for President nationwide. It is a better step towards getting rid of the Electoral College.
“Actually, there is a better proposal on the table that grants all of California’s Electors to the candidate who wins the majority of the votes for President nationwide. It is a better step towards getting rid of the Electoral College. ”
I’ve never heard a worse idea.
d’Anconia,
Arcticle II, Section 1, 1st line of the 2nd paragraph of the US Constitution…check it out and then decide if you still support this proposition.