Winner-take-all system challenged (in CA)

[question everything]

Saturday, December 11, 2004

Winner-take-all system challenged

By: WYATT HAUPT - Staff Writer

(snip)

Assemblyman John Benoit, R-Palm Desert, introduced legislation this week that calls for California's Electoral College votes to be awarded based on voter totals in each of the state's 53 congressional districts. The state's two remaining electoral votes would go to the presidential candidate who receives a plurality of popular votes statewide.

Benoit said the idea is to get Democratic and Republican candidates alike to campaign harder in the state. Democrats have won the last four presidential contests in California. Sen. John Kerry was considered such a lock to carry California in November that neither he nor President Bush spent much time campaigning here.

"It is a slap in the face of California voters that our 55 electoral votes, the largest block in the country, are given to one candidate without anything more than a token campaign being launched in our state," Benoit said in a statement. "This bill will bring California back onto the national playing field."

(snip)

Two other states, Maine and Nebraska, operate under an Electoral College system similar to the one proposed by Benoit. Notably, neither state has ever split its electoral votes as candidates carried the entire state in each presidential election.

Regardless, California Democratic Party spokesman Bob Mulholland said the bill doesn't stand a chance of getting through the Democrat-controlled Legislature.

"Zero," Mulholland said.

(snip)

From http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/12/opinion/commentary/21_56_1312_10_04.txt

[Wabbajack]

1. A better soultion

is to elimiante the electoral college so each person's vote is worth the same.

[aquart]

5. No. It means vote theft is easier to hide.

Because you won't know where the votes were stolen.

[mchill]

2. that's right, reform the EV, one blue state at a time

Isn't it enough that the red's got the president they wanted?

[latteromden]

3. It should happen

I'm all for electoral college reform (not elimination - I believe that it's a good thing in elections), even if it DOES mean splitting up California. I personally don't like it, but it's fairer. And screw it all, let's just split up Texas it works for CA.

[aquart]

4. But Texas won't split.

So only the Democrats lose electoral votes. Real smart. Tell you what. When Texas and Florida split their electoral votes, we'll talk about California and New York.

[question everything]

6. Makes sense

Has anyone ever analyzed - I am sure many have - the 2000 and 2004 votes, even the 1992 and 1996 votes, to see whether proportional allocation of votes would have changed the final outcome?

I think that I read someplace that Clinton would have lost in 1992, but that Gore would have won in 2000.

[unblock]

9. such analysis is theoretically impossible

because the campaigns would have looked completely different.
indeed, the candidates might well have been completely different.

for instance, if you lived in a "safe state", you probably thought there was virtually no television advertising, though you got sick of t.v. ads if you were in a state that was in play.

if we shifted to proportional allocation or straight popular vote, you would have seen far more advertising in major population centers, whether in safe states or not, and rural visits would have pretty much vanished (at least in a popular vote system. in proportional allocation, states with 3 or 4 electoral votes are still cost-effective.

[blurp]

10. Splitting states is a good idea.

There is such a great variety of people and points of view I just can't see how a large state like CA TX or FL even can possibly serve everyone well.

[mrdmk]

7. This sounds like a recipe to Gerrymander California

These Republicans think they are on a roll. Dump the electoral college. Have a paper trail for the DRE's. No more Secretary of States having official place in a campaign for office (hence no more Blackwell or Harris dissing the voters). Lets not fall for the one party system here folks.

[unblock]

8. this is is unilateral electoral disarmament.

if california does this, then it becomes FAR, FAR less relevant in presidential races than even, say, new jersey.

usually congressional districts are gerrymandered so that most are 60% one way or 90% the other way. very few are "in play". so suddenly, only 6 to 10 districts are in play, and you have to make 6-10 visits in order to hit each one, because each district is worth only 1 electoral vote.

on the other hand, make just one visit to trenton and all of new jersey comes your way. same goes for ohio, iowa, and so on.