[lit-ideas] Re: Yo, Californians!
- From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:50:59 +0100
I'd read about this one
>>>>>>>>>>>>
A group of California Democrats are trying to counter the
GOP-backed ballot measure with a proposition of their own that would implement
the National Popular Vote plan in the Golden State, as long as states with a
majority of the electoral votes also agree to use the same system.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
. (They want to break the Electoral
College without actually amending the Constitution.)
(In 2000, Gore won the popular vote -- BTW -- you win some, you
lose some)
----- Original Message -----
From: Julie Krueger
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:01 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Yo, Californians!
What the hell are you guys doin' down there???
Julie Krueger
August 24, 2007
(CNN) — California voters are inclined to support a proposed ballot measure
that Democratic leaders fear could doom the party's chances of winning back the
White House in 2008 by giving Republicans a chunk of the state's large block of
Electoral College votes, according to results of a poll released this week.
By a margin of 47 percent to 35 percent, the Field Poll found voters
supported a GOP-inspired ballot measure replacing the state's winner-take-all
method for awarding electoral votes with a system that would give one vote to
the candidate who won the most votes in each of the state's 53 congressional
districts and two votes to the statewide winner.
Had that system been in place in 2004, President Bush, who lost California to
the Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry, would still have captured 22 of the
state's 55 electoral votes. Under the winner-take-all system, Kerry got them
all.
The proposed change would be damaging to Democrats, who have come to rely on
California's block of votes — the largest haul available in any state — as part
of their arithmetic to get to an Electoral College majority. For instance, in
2004, if Bush had taken those 22 California electoral votes, he would not have
needed to carry the pivotal state of Ohio, with 20 electoral votes, to go over
the top.
"This would all but guarantee that the Republican nominee would get 20 extra
Electoral College votes, which could certainly impact the outcome of the
election," said Allan Hoffenblum, a Republican strategist.
And that is exactly what has Democrats crying foul.
"The Republicans are doing this in California because they want a chunk of
our vote," said Darry Sragow, a Democratic strategist.
The Field Poll found that when voters were told of the possible political
implications of the ballot measure, support shot up among Republicans and
dropped among Democrats, and the margin of support narrowed. Overall, though,
supporters still outnumbered opponents, by a margin of 49 percent to 42
percent, with a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
A group called Californians for Equal Representation is trying to qualify the
initiative for next June's statewide primary, which would put the change into
effect for the 2008 election. To get the question on the ballot, supporters
will have to collect about 424,000 petition signatures from registered voters
by Nov. 13, according to the Secretary of State's office.
Collecting enough signatures to qualify a statewide initiative "takes about a
million dollars," Sragow said. However, under state law, there are no
contribution limits for ballot measure campaigns, which makes it easier to
raise large amounts of money.
The initiative was submitted by Thomas Hiltachk, a Sacramento election lawyer
who is also general counsel for Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The
purpose of the change, according to the language in the initiative, is to make
California more relevant in presidential elections by forcing candidates to
campaign in the state, which a Republican hasn't carried since 1988.
Under the Constitution, each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to
its representation in Congress, including both representatives and senators,
and the District of Columbia gets three. State governments decide how to award
those votes, and 48 states give all of them to the candidate who wins the
largest number of popular votes, as does the District of Columbia.
Two states — Nebraska and Maine — have adopted the system that is being
proposed for California, assigning their electoral votes based on who wins
individual congressional districts, with the statewide winner getting the two
votes derived from senators. But this has not generated controversy because
both states have just a handful of votes and the results have never resulted in
splitting them between candidates.
The disputed 2000 election, in which Bush won the electoral vote — and the
presidency — while losing the popular vote, has generated a flurry of proposals
to abolish or alter the Electoral College, both at the federal and state level.
In 2006, Colorado voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have
divided up the electoral vote pie in proportion to each candidates' share of
the popular vote. Also, a group called National Popular Vote is lobbying state
legislatures to adopt a system where all of a state's electoral votes would be
pledged to the winner of the national popular vote, which, if enough states
adopt the plan, would ensure the popular vote winner always became president.
A group of California Democrats are trying to counter the GOP-backed ballot
measure with a proposition of their own that would implement the National
Popular Vote plan in the Golden State, as long as states with a majority of the
electoral votes also agree to use the same system.
However, the political implications of that change could be even worse for
Democrats. If that method had been in place in 2004, Bush, as the winner of the
national popular vote, would have taken all 55 of California's electoral votes,
despite the fact that Kerry beat him by 10 points statewide.
Other related posts:
