Can Democrats Win the White House without Washington and Oregon?
Republicans, in fear of being sucked under by the anti-Bush whirlpool, are looking desperately for ways to win the White House in 2008.
Republicans in California think the answer is to change the rules for next year's Presidential election. Their strategy is to change California's statewide winner take all primary with its 55 electoral votes to one allocating the votes based on who wins individual Congressional District votes.
Except for Maine (4 electoral votes) and Nebraska (5 electoral votes) states currently allocate their electoral college votes by a winner take all process statewide. Each state is allocated 2 votes for their 2 Senators and 1 vote for each Representative.
Currently 19 of California's Congressional Districts are held by Republicans. In 2004 John Kerry won the statewide vote over Bush by 54% to 44%. However Bush won majorities in 22 of California's 53 Congressional Districts.
Changing how California allocates its electoral votes would be the equivalent to transferring the combined vote of Washington (11 electoral votes)and Oregon (7 electoral votes) to the Republican column. Remember Ohio's 20 electoral votes - we're talking about a sizable impact if the Republicans proposed change in California is successful.
According to the LA Times> a California Republican group is pushing the "Presidential Election Reform Act Initiative" for the June 2008 California Primary ballot. If passed by voters it would change significantly change the 2008 Presidential election.
Of course no similar effort is slated for decidedly Republican states like Texas which has 34 electoral votes. Altering the rules in specific Democratic states like California to benefit Republican Presidential ambitions is totally in character for Republicans and is a serious threat to Democrats in 2008.
You only need to look at two recent instances where Republicans used the legislative and electoral process to change rules and commonly accepted legal procedures to benefit Republicans. One was the Republican recall campaign of Democratic Governor Gray Davis in 2003 which resulted in Davis's recall and the election of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor.
The New Yorker in an article entitled Votescam by Hendrick Hertzberg in fact reports that California Republican Hiltachk was involved in the recall effort that put Schwarzenegger into office and that he is "Governor Schwarzenegger's personal lawyers for election matters."
The other was the effort by Texas Republicans with the aid of Congressman Tom DeLay to redraw the Congressional District boundaries in Texas to gain Republican seats in Congress
Texas Republicans and Delay did their controversial redistricting action after they won control of the Texas Legislature in 2002. In 2004 the Congressional District numbers shifted dramatically. A 17/15 Democrat advantage changed to a 21/11 Republican advantage. In 2006 the Republicans still had a 19/13 advantage.
Distributing electoral votes to winners of Congressional Districts rather than winner take all state votes would seem at first look to be fair if every state had the same rules. But that would clearly not be the case if California alone shifted the way it proportions its electoral votes. The end result would be to shift electoral votes to the Republicans at the expense of the Democrats. Its like spotting the Republicans some 20 electoral votes before the counting even starts.
Would the proposal solve the problem of states clearly being Republican or Democratic and being ignored by the candidates because the outcome is not really in doubt? Actually it would probably make it even worse. You just need to look at the last Congressional campaign in 2006. National attention and money was focused into only 30 -40 battleground Congressional districts.
Would candidates really campaign all over Ohio for example? No - they would concentrate their resources in the much smaller geographical areas of contested battleground Congressional Districts up for grabs in Ohio. They would not be very smart if they spent their time in Congressional Districts that are clearly Republican or Democratic and unlikely to change.
Here in Washington State the biggest spending Congressional race was between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert in the 8th C.D. Not much attention was paid to Congressman Jim McDermotts race in Seattle. If electoral votes were allocated by Congressional District, Presidential candidates would go to Bellevue, not Seattle or Everett or Yakima.
Another alternative being considered by some states is a movement to elect the President by popular vote. Such a bill was before the Washington State Legislature this last session. As proposed the legislation would not go into effect until states with a majority of electoral votes (270) passes the legislation. Maryland is the first state to pass such legislation.
See also:
Newsweek "A Red Play for the Golden State"
Sacramento Bee "Electoral System Initiative worries Dems"
Republicans in California think the answer is to change the rules for next year's Presidential election. Their strategy is to change California's statewide winner take all primary with its 55 electoral votes to one allocating the votes based on who wins individual Congressional District votes.
Except for Maine (4 electoral votes) and Nebraska (5 electoral votes) states currently allocate their electoral college votes by a winner take all process statewide. Each state is allocated 2 votes for their 2 Senators and 1 vote for each Representative.
Currently 19 of California's Congressional Districts are held by Republicans. In 2004 John Kerry won the statewide vote over Bush by 54% to 44%. However Bush won majorities in 22 of California's 53 Congressional Districts.
Changing how California allocates its electoral votes would be the equivalent to transferring the combined vote of Washington (11 electoral votes)and Oregon (7 electoral votes) to the Republican column. Remember Ohio's 20 electoral votes - we're talking about a sizable impact if the Republicans proposed change in California is successful.
According to the LA Times> a California Republican group is pushing the "Presidential Election Reform Act Initiative" for the June 2008 California Primary ballot. If passed by voters it would change significantly change the 2008 Presidential election.
Can California do this? Yes they can. Each individual state and not the Federal Constitution determines how electoral votes are determined. Hiltachk has filed the text of the Presidential Election Reform Initiative with the California Secretary of State on July 17, 2007. He has paid his $200 filing fee and is awaiting the assignment of a ballot tile and summary. He filed in the name of "Californians for Equal Representation" based in Sacramento, California."We've hit the mother lode of political interest," said Republican consultant Kevin Eckery, part of the group pushing the Presidential Election Reform Act Initiative.
The measure was written by attorney Thomas Hiltachk, whose Sacramento firm represents the California Republican Party. Also backing the initiative is campaign strategist Marty Wilson, a fundraiser last year for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and now for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Neither Schwarzenegger nor any of the presidential candidates has signed on to the effort. Nor is there confirmed financial backing; Eckery said the fundraising to begin this week is aimed at getting $300,000 to $500,000 for polling and other preliminary work before signature-gathering. Collecting the necessary 434,000 signatures could cost $2 million.
Proponents are optimistic that backers of the presidential candidates will ante up. Though there are federal limits to donations to candidates, California law places no bar on the amount donors can spend on initiatives.
Of course no similar effort is slated for decidedly Republican states like Texas which has 34 electoral votes. Altering the rules in specific Democratic states like California to benefit Republican Presidential ambitions is totally in character for Republicans and is a serious threat to Democrats in 2008.
You only need to look at two recent instances where Republicans used the legislative and electoral process to change rules and commonly accepted legal procedures to benefit Republicans. One was the Republican recall campaign of Democratic Governor Gray Davis in 2003 which resulted in Davis's recall and the election of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor.
The New Yorker in an article entitled Votescam by Hendrick Hertzberg in fact reports that California Republican Hiltachk was involved in the recall effort that put Schwarzenegger into office and that he is "Governor Schwarzenegger's personal lawyers for election matters."
The other was the effort by Texas Republicans with the aid of Congressman Tom DeLay to redraw the Congressional District boundaries in Texas to gain Republican seats in Congress
Texas Republicans and Delay did their controversial redistricting action after they won control of the Texas Legislature in 2002. In 2004 the Congressional District numbers shifted dramatically. A 17/15 Democrat advantage changed to a 21/11 Republican advantage. In 2006 the Republicans still had a 19/13 advantage.
Distributing electoral votes to winners of Congressional Districts rather than winner take all state votes would seem at first look to be fair if every state had the same rules. But that would clearly not be the case if California alone shifted the way it proportions its electoral votes. The end result would be to shift electoral votes to the Republicans at the expense of the Democrats. Its like spotting the Republicans some 20 electoral votes before the counting even starts.
Would the proposal solve the problem of states clearly being Republican or Democratic and being ignored by the candidates because the outcome is not really in doubt? Actually it would probably make it even worse. You just need to look at the last Congressional campaign in 2006. National attention and money was focused into only 30 -40 battleground Congressional districts.
Would candidates really campaign all over Ohio for example? No - they would concentrate their resources in the much smaller geographical areas of contested battleground Congressional Districts up for grabs in Ohio. They would not be very smart if they spent their time in Congressional Districts that are clearly Republican or Democratic and unlikely to change.
Here in Washington State the biggest spending Congressional race was between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert in the 8th C.D. Not much attention was paid to Congressman Jim McDermotts race in Seattle. If electoral votes were allocated by Congressional District, Presidential candidates would go to Bellevue, not Seattle or Everett or Yakima.
Another alternative being considered by some states is a movement to elect the President by popular vote. Such a bill was before the Washington State Legislature this last session. As proposed the legislation would not go into effect until states with a majority of electoral votes (270) passes the legislation. Maryland is the first state to pass such legislation.
See also:
Newsweek "A Red Play for the Golden State"
Sacramento Bee "Electoral System Initiative worries Dems"
Labels: California initiative, Democrats, electoral college, Presidential election, Republicans
Posted by Steve Zemke at 11:30 PM | Permanent Link
2 Comments:
The Electoral College violates the civil rights of each and every American in the United States. We are in this together and our votes must be equal for any government to derive its "just powers." The Constitution begins "WE THE PEOPLE," not We the States.
The Electoral College is an unconstitutional feature unconstitutionally inserted into the Constitution. So concluded Lucius Wilmerding of Princeton, the political scientist who coined the term "One voter--One vote" in his work The Electoral College written in 1958. And Andrew Jackson told Congress in 1828 that the Electoral College was never intended to reverse the vote of the American people.
The Electoral College violates the Declaration of Independence in many ways. It does not treat Americans as created equal, it converts their inalienable rights into mere privileges, and violates government with the consent of the governed (the greater truth goes with the greater number" DeTocqueville).
If the Declaration of Independence is binding then the Electoral College is unconstitutional. (1783 a slave named Quok Walker sues his slavemaster in Massachusetts arguing that the words "all men are created equal" made illegal the slavery then existing in that state). The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agrees with the slave and abolished slavery in Massachusetts.
The Declaration of Independence is explicitly recognized the Supreme law of the state of all Post Civil War States. See for example Congressional enabling act and the Constitution of the state of Nevada. http://www.nevadaobserver.com. The State of Nevada, for example, provided, "That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence." The supremacy of the Declaration of 1776 over the Slave Holder's Constitution of 1787 was inserted into the Constitutions and enabling acts of all states of the Union admitted after the Gettysburg Address.
The Supreme Court of the United States said in 1964 that all votes in the same constituency must have the same weight. The court outlawed the electoral college of the state of Georgia which gave different weight according to county. Every vote must be equal regardless of the place it was cast said the Supreme Court. It is time to implement this ruling.
Yours truly
Gary Michael Coutin, Esquire
The Electoral College violates the civil rights of each and every American in the United States. We are in this together and our votes must be equal for any government to derive its "just powers." The Constitution begins "WE THE PEOPLE," not We the States.
The Electoral College is an unconstitutional feature unconstitutionally inserted into the Constitution. So concluded Lucius Wilmerding of Princeton, the political scientist who coined the term "One voter--One vote" in his work The Electoral College written in 1958. And Andrew Jackson told Congress in 1828 that the Electoral College was never intended to reverse the vote of the American people.
The Electoral College violates the Declaration of Independence in many ways. It does not treat Americans as created equal, it converts their inalienable rights into mere privileges, and violates government with the consent of the governed (the greater truth goes with the greater number" DeTocqueville).
If the Declaration of Independence is binding then the Electoral College is unconstitutional. (1783 a slave named Quok Walker sues his slavemaster in Massachusetts arguing that the words "all men are created equal" made illegal the slavery then existing in that state). The Supreme Court of Massachusetts agrees with the slave and abolished slavery in Massachusetts.
The Declaration of Independence is explicitly recognized the Supreme law of the state of all Post Civil War States. See for example Congressional enabling act and the Constitution of the state of Nevada. http://www.nevadaobserver.com. The State of Nevada, for example, provided, "That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence." The supremacy of the Declaration of 1776 over the Slave Holder's Constitution of 1787 was inserted into the Constitutions and enabling acts of all states of the Union admitted after the Gettysburg Address.
The Supreme Court of the United States said in 1964 that all votes in the same constituency must have the same weight. The court outlawed the electoral college of the state of Georgia which gave different weight according to county. Every vote must be equal regardless of the place it was cast said the Supreme Court. It is time to implement this ruling.
Yours truly
Gary Michael Coutin, Esquire
Post a Comment
<< Home