Californian Initiatives Play with Electoral College

California is America’s biggest state by population, and therefore, it is the biggest prize in the electoral college that selects America’s president. By winning California (a largely Democratic state), a candidate gets 55 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Since the set up is winner-take-all, this favors the Democrats. The Republicans in the state are trying hard to change that, and the Democrats may have found a way to stop them.

Because the state constitution allows for referenda, the GOP has decided to get the state legislature to go to the people and change the winner-take-all set up. They want electors chosen in proportion to the Congressional Districts a presidential candidate wins, and they are trying to get that on the ballot for this November. Since there are 19 Republican-held House seats, that could mean 19 or so electors for a GOP candidate who loses the state. That would effectively be a 38-40 vote swing – more votes than Texas or New York (the other big states) are worth.

Needless to say, the Democrats in the state are not happy. Their countermove is to declare that California is in favor of electing the president by popular vote. Democratic activists have started the process of getting such a resolution on the ballot, and it includes language that says it over-rules the GOP plan if it receives more votes from the people.

This is crafty because a Field Poll released this week shows the GOP proposal is favored by 47% of respondents against 35% who oppose it. The Democrats’ proposal would have California’s electors back the winner of the national popular vote regardless of who wins the state, but only if states making up half the electoral college do the same. In a choice between the Electoral College and congressional districts (the GOP’s plan that allows for a little democracy), the CDs win. In a choice between the Electoral College and the popular vote (a lot of democracy), Americans prefer picking their president directly.

The GOP is almost certain to lose the presidency in 2008 under the existing rules; so they want to change the rules. Many Democrats remain convinced that the 2000 election was quite possibly stolen through the Electoral College and Supreme Court, and they want to make sure that can’t happen again. It would be far cleaner to amend the constitution to allow for direct election of the president, but the states that currently benefit from the Electoral College (self-important New Hampshire, Wyoming, both Dakotas, and Delaware to name a few) have the power to stop such an amendment in the Senate and have no desire to diminish their own power. As a result, the country is reduced to referendum and counter-referendum – hardly a way to govern a superpower.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home