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.The initiative is titled The Presidential Election Reform Act. Hiltachk works out of Sacramento, at a firm that represents the California Republican Party. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a past client of Hiltachk's, disavows any connection to the initiative. State Republican Chairman Ron Nehring, on the other hand, seems to think it's a swell idea, saying, "We'll take a serious look at it, once it qualifies for the ballot."
Call it gerrymandering writ-large. If you can't win California's electoral votes the way the elections are currently run, change the rules! Let's hope the voters of the Golden State shoot this shameless attempt at rigging the next election down in flames. If you want to make democracy more representative, then do so in every state of the union. These are, after all, national elections.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. What is it with the Republicans, from Bush-Cheney down now to the State level, if they can't win with the current rules, they change the rules so that they can. What ever happened to 'play be the rules' and being 'good sports'? More "Dirty Politics" as usual for them. Don't they understand that most of America WANTS A CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP. Leaders that lead with integrity and believe in defending our Constitution above all else!
Keith Hunter at 12:35PM on Aug 1st 2007
2. The Repugnican party is an ongoing criminal enterprise and should be prosecuted under Rico statutes.
It would be better to shame the "party" out of existence, but ultimately, they are shameless.
Randy at 1:50PM on Aug 1st 2007
3. I think it's a great idea. With so many democrats in California they always get their way. So by voting by district, some of the votes may go where the voters intended.
George Pledger at 2:49PM on Aug 1st 2007
4. I think it's a good idea. The Democrats in this state don't want any changes that would upset their election juryrigging. They don't want any laws requiring positive ID at the polls or proof of citizenship passed and they will allow illegegal aliens to vote in the upcoming election with this ploy. This ballot initiative will level the playing field for independant voters.
Mark at 6:33PM on Aug 1st 2007
5. Are you kidding me...how the hell is this fair? Were a few people living out in a country district's votes equals that of Los angeles which has millions of people. Democrats win the state fairly---an overwhelming amount of people vote for them, so they win.
Patrick at 8:47PM on Aug 1st 2007
6. Keith in #1 wrote "if they can't win with the current rules, they change the rules so that they can. What ever happened to 'play be the rules' and being 'good sports'?"
Seems to me, I recall Democrats and liberals talking about getting rid of the electorial college altogether when Bush beat Gore in 2000. I also found this little tidbit ofrom the linked article:
"Voters in Colorado rejected one of the highest-profile ballot initiatives in the nation, a change that would have awarded the state's nine electoral votes on a prorated basis, as is done in Maine and Nebraska. The presidential candidate who won the vote statewide—Bush this time—would have lost one electoral vote for each congressional district carried by his opponent.
A majority of Democrats supported the idea. Republicans overwhelmingly rejected it."
http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20041115judgmentday_2.cfm
Once again, the liberals on this board have demonstrated their own hypocracy.
Ed at 9:41AM on Aug 2nd 2007
7. Congressional allocation of electoral votes is nothing more than a power play by a given state's minority party. The Republicans are trying to do it by initiative in California and the Democrats (a red presidential state) are trying to do it through legislation.
The real, non-partisan solution is a direct national popular vote for President. That system would eliminate battleground and safe states as we know them and would therefore make every vote equal. Currently a candidate would much rather have a vote in Ohio or Wisconsin, i.e. a battleground state, than in a safe state like Rhode Island, Montana, or Texas. A national popular vote would force candidates to compete for every vote and make winning or losing an individual state irrelevant. A group called National Popular Vote is trying to accomplish this goal on a state-by-state basis.
Lars at 10:56AM on Aug 2nd 2007
8. I think we all agree the electoral college is archaic. I'm all for awarding by congressional district - so let Florida, Texas, Arkansas,Colorado etc - join as well. Otherwise, I think we'll pass.
Truthfully, we just skip that too and go to a pure popular vote for national elections.
carson grey at 9:51PM on Aug 2nd 2007