California Ballot Initiatives on Electoral College

[lawrocket 3]

The present system in California is that the person who wins the popular vote in California gets all 55 of California's electoral votes. California has 53 Congressional districts and 2 senators, accounting for 55 votes.

California has a new proposed ballot initiative. It would award electoral college votes to a presidential candidate based on the number of congressional districts the candidate won. For example, in last last election, George Bush got the majority vote in 22 districts. Kerry won the other 31 and the popular vote. So California would have pledged 22 votes to Bush and 33 to Kerry.

The Democrats are not too pleased about this (though they would have liked in it 1984, I'll bet). The Dems, however, have suggested that the candidate who gets the majority of votes by the rest of the country gets all of California's, and that California sign a pact with other states comprising a majority of electoral votes. In a sense, skirting the electoral college.

I think the idea of electoral votes by district is interesting - and probably more fair than the system we have now. It sucks to me that I've never had a president in office for whom I voted. (Of course, I have voted libertarian in every election, so that likely won't change.)

In any event, I do not particularly like the idea of states giving their electoral votes to a candidate based on the actions of other states.

This one is interesting. I know it's a good idea because the Democrat leaders are screaming bloody murder about the very concept.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Personally I would support something you left out..

ELIMINATE the Electoral College and bring Democracy to America finally.

[1969912 0]

What does Ca law say about who makes the decision, how often can apportionment be changed....?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rushmc 23]

While I do not think it should change I would like it untill such time that CA did not vote left.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I would want to have a real good look at the redistricting system in the state before I would agree to that proposal. If I was convinced it was a non-partisan system I would think it would be a better system for a big state like Cal; not so much for a small state.

[kelpdiver 2]

First off, states have choice in this matter, though I think giving all the EV to the national popular vote winner would be a violation of their own citizens voting rights. So to me, that option should be removed from the list.

So you have 3 options:

1) status quo. Winner take all.

2) proportional vote. You win 60% of the votes, you get 60% of the EVs. This would encourage Californians to vote, as their marginal vote would become relevent again in the outcome. Not vunerable to gerrymandering, every vote has equal value.

3) vote by congressional district. State winner gets the bonus 2. You maintain the model of representative democracy, the model that has worked for 220 years. Each region picks a winner. Problems - districts are updated once a decade and are badly gerrymandered. I'd like to see the population counts of the 22 districts Bush won versus the 31 that Kerry got. It's likely that some votes will be worth more than others as a result. Election results are more unwieldy and may require multiple recounts to ensure fairest result.

I think the downfalls in the execution doom #3. If you don't like winner take all, you have to go for #2. But the obvious problem for both 2 and 3 is that they marginalize California in the election. Unless Texas and Florida and Ohio do it as well, the current result is just to give the GOP an extra 20 votes without requiring the candidate to campaign here. (Which right now would be no difference, Shrub has actively pissed on the state and doomed the GOP for another few election cycles, despite it being a state they dominated in the 70s and 80s.)

If the entire country switched to vote by district level, California wouldn't be punished, but you still have this problem of how districts are formed, and now you run the potential of having the President being the equilivent of the House Majority Leader, presuming that the same party would win each election. If so, why not just go with Britain's two party Parlimentary model?

-----
from a politics perspect, I don't like the notion of change. You'll deflate the margin of victory and the supposed mandate. With the growth in absentee ballots, we'll end up waiting until Thursday to get a winner. The presumed loser will challenge 10 or 20 district counts with a potential of winning the election back. A big fucking mess.

Dumping the Electoral College will marginalize campaigning in smaller states, and only increase the use of TV (and campaign funding). The grass isn't greener.

California Republicans pushing this through to gain an edge will shoot themselves in the foot as it will only encourage the Democrats to drive their own wish of a national winner take all in response to 2000. Both sides are better off with what we have now.

I'll admit that voters in Ohio that don't have Tivos might appreciate any change. While I see almost no advertizing in San Francisco now, they get pounded since 2% of that state can mean the election. Switch it around and I'll probably be fast forwarding past a lot more ads.

[1969912 0]

In general, anything that the Democrats oppose tends to be good for free-market exchange of goods, overall freedom, security, the future of our children, respect for the 2nd Amend., free speech, wealth of the nation, and on and on. The louder they squeak and scream, the more important to my ideals it is. Looks like they are pretty upset about it, so I support it.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Personally I would support something you left out..

ELIMINATE the Electoral College and bring Democracy to America finally.

Best rewrite the Constitution first...since (as you well know) our government was NOT set up as a democracy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TheAnvil 0]

I have never liked the winner take all concept for the disposition of a State's electoral college votes. I support option two. There are other states that do the same thing. I hope the initiative becomes law. If the Dem's hate it, then at least 75% of the time it is a great idea. This falls within that 75%.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Guest]

Quote

Personally I would support something you left out..

ELIMINATE the Electoral College and bring Democracy to America finally.

So only the votes of the people in the most highly populated states will have any significance, and the people in the Red states are SOL. That's so appropriate.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[rehmwa 2]

I wonder if the founders had considered that some states would be so VERY disproportionate in population to others when they worked out this balance of individual and state's right in the voting system......

In essence, within a huge EV state, districts are being marginalized by the rest of the state. Just like the founders worried about happening to the small states back when.

I'd hate for a large state to lose all it's leverage. It's very stupid for California to do this (in terms of their self-interest). But, the disparity vs the little states is also, very out of line. I'd prefer that instead of each district cast one vote, the large states split up the votes into "regions" - i.e., treat the vote as if each state was more like 5 or ten substates, rather than a completely proportional vote.

It would still follow the reasoning behind the electoral concept. Which based on state's rights being important too.

Edit: as far as them trying to circumvent law instead of changing law by attempting to follow a popular vote method, that's typical . In essence, it's an attempt to clearly remove state's rights and individual state's effectiveness. I think it's slimy. But the cliche call of "democracy" without regard to state's right positions and a representative government structure is much easier and dumbed down for the masses.

Post Edit: Happy to be in before this thread takes an idiotic turn to the same old Bush v Gore nonsense.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Channman 2]

Quote

Personally I would support something you left out..

ELIMINATE the Electoral College and bring Democracy to America finally.

Keep the Electoral College as is, and bring back the Representative Replublic.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

So only the votes of the people in the most highly populated states will have any significance, and the people in the Red states are SOL. That's so appropriate.

Why do you hate the concept of ONE PERSON=ONE VOTE...that is called DEMOCRACY.

You are supporting a one vote is MORE EQUAL than others depending on where you live. It also leads to abuses of power by a RULING CLASS.

[rehmwa 2]

you make sense as long as we eliminate all forms of state government and only have federal control

in the meantime, those pesky sub-governments called states can leverage your proposal to the detriment of people that live in less populous area

why do you hate state's rights?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

Quote

in the meantime, those pesky sub-governments called states can leverage your proposal to the detriment of people that live in less populous area

They already do.. all over the country...that is PART of the states rights.

[billvon 3,132]

>'d prefer that instead of each district cast one vote, the large states split
>up the votes into "regions" - i.e., treat the vote as if each state was more
>like 5 or ten substates, rather than a completely proportional vote.

Not a bad idea. The original idea isn't bad either - provided it was implemented across the US, rather than on a state-by-state basis. The state-by-state basis thing could turn out to be a clusterfuck as each state tries to rapidly change its status to support whatever party is in power (a la Texas redistricting.)

[Zenister 0]

Quote

you make sense as long as we eliminate all forms of state government and only have federal control

in the meantime, those pesky sub-governments called states can leverage your proposal to the detriment of people that live in less populous area

why do you hate state's rights?

what states rights? they pretty much have none in the current system.. at any point if they attempt to go against the grain of the federal government they lose..

"State's rights" is a meaningless term now.. we might as well abolish them completely (or return their authority to define what is and is not legal within their borders)

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>'d prefer that instead of each district cast one vote, the large states split
>up the votes into "regions" - i.e., treat the vote as if each state was more
>like 5 or ten substates, rather than a completely proportional vote.

Not a bad idea. The original idea isn't bad either - provided it was implemented across the US, rather than on a state-by-state basis. The state-by-state basis thing could turn out to be a clusterfuck as each state tries to rapidly change its status to support whatever party is in power (a la Texas redistricting.)

1 - what's this "original idea" you mention?

my thought is that there would be a maximum number of electoral votes that could be bundled. If the state has more than that, then they split into voting regions until each has the maximum or less. Though, the extra 2 votes would then need to be accounted for

I mean, there is probably more diversity between northern and southern california than there is between say, Vermont and New Hamshire.

I don't think the founders ever thought that 3 votes would be competing against a big state with 10 to 20 times as many votes. winner takes all makes sense from the states right perspective, but the leverage of the big states is still disproportionate - 2 extra votes doesn't balance it.

Or, to meet the original intent, Keep the total number of - Electoral votes - cast proportional to the popular vote within the state, and the 2 extra votes are cast for the overall winner. The reflects our legislative structure much better. (the only states that would, by definition, cast all or nothing automatically, would be the 3 EC vote states).

Example - Indiana has 12 votes. 10 for population, and 2 for the state.

If they come down with 60% for Ralph Nader, and 40% for Pat Buchanan, then Ralph gets 8 votes (6 + 2) and Pat gets 4. Both also get kicked in the nuts for being wierdos.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

what states rights? they pretty much have none in the current system.. at any point if they attempt to go against the grain of the federal government they lose..

you got a little spittle there - right there, on your collar

you outrage at whatever it is you are upset about is reflected this way? ----> {{we might as well abolish them completely }} What exactly are you hypothesizing as a solution? HOw do you "abolish" the 'concept' of states rights, state to state parity? especially under the argument that they don't exist anyway one should close the door the rest of the way?


Since you and Amazon don't believe that individual states (only individuals) should have leverage in politics, then I assume you also propose we abolish the Senate? Since it doesn't have any power anyway?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>what's this "original idea" you mention?

1 vote per congressional district as the OP mentioned.

>Keep the total number of - Electoral votes - cast proportional to the
>popular vote within the state, and the 2 extra votes are cast for the winner.

Sure, would work as well, and is quite close to Lawrocket's suggestion.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>what's this "original idea" you mention?

1 vote per congressional district as the OP mentioned.

>Keep the total number of - Electoral votes - cast proportional to the
>popular vote within the state, and the 2 extra votes are cast for the winner.

Sure, would work as well, and is quite close to Lawrocket's suggestion.

either way, it should be everywhere (I agree with you there), else it would just be a coalition of states trying to do the expeditious thing in defiance of the intent of the constitution - I'd rather see them go after a national initiative of this sort than the.


(In review, my preferred concept is identical to Lawrockets.....it most closely matches how our representation model is designed)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

The Dems, however, have suggested that the candidate who gets the majority of votes by the rest of the country gets all of California's

this has got to be on the list of all time stupid ideas. it would mean that californians would get no vote. can a state even take away it's citizens' right to vote?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

The Dems, however, have suggested that the candidate who gets the majority of votes by the rest of the country gets all of California's

this has got to be on the list of all time stupid ideas. it would mean that californians would get no vote. can a state even take away it's citizens' right to vote?

that state can.....and will once the citizens insist upon it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't think the founders ever thought that 3 votes would be competing against a big state with 10 to 20 times as many votes. winner takes all makes sense from the states right perspective, but the leverage of the big states is still disproportionate - 2 extra votes doesn't balance it.

the 13 colonies were vastly different in size, so I think they were fully aware. California has more leverage than Alaska, but a single polar bear has a lot more leverage than a hippy.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Dems, however, have suggested that the candidate who gets the majority of votes by the rest of the country gets all of California's

this has got to be on the list of all time stupid ideas. it would mean that californians would get no vote. can a state even take away it's citizens' right to vote?

that state can.....and will once the citizens insist upon it

But why would they? It presumes a certain lack of intelligence - the majority's vote is diminished, so why would a majority of voters want it?