Shadowy Figures and Deception Surround Republican Attempt to Change How Californians Award Electoral College Votes in Presidential Elections

The lack of analytic insight in this article is breathtaking. Naturally, the Republicans are trying to change the rules of the game in California and leave them the same in other states--they are, after all, Republicans and believe in a classist, hierarchical society.
But what Russo doesn't mention (maybe because it would offend his friends at the Capitol) is that the Republicans are also trying to do this with redistricting, where once again, the "reform" would be restricted to California and not other states.

California redistricting "reform" should not go into effect until 8 out of the 10 largest states also agree to a "reform"--only in California in these states was redistricting
in the hands of the Democrats and this is the only state where there is any effort to change the process. Why do Democrats want to commit suicide? Or more precisely, why does the Democratic leadership want to turn its back on the coalition which put them there?

I agree about redistricting reform and also think that Mr. Russo is being unfair to Republicans in the original post. My party unfortunately started this by getting greedy in North Carolina where at least the Governor has had the good sense not to sign a measure which would have divided the "Tar Heel" states electoral votes by congressional district and Republicans in other states (not just California) have made noises about picking up on the idea in kind of an electoral arms race with the advantage going to Republicans because there are more electoral votes at stake in places where ballot measures could qualify that usually vote for Democrats and of course Republicans have more money to spend and can bleed Democrats of their needed dollars.

But there are bigger issues that hopefully will stop this idea from being pursued by either party. Those with a knowledge of history realize that throughout history, the destruction of democracy has always started with elites gaming the system to gain partisan advantage and the electorate deciding that their chosen officials had not won fairly and I would like to think that knowledge will stop the hyperpartisans on both sides from promoting these types of ideas.

I shouldn't be getting my California political news from the New Yorker, but that's what happens when you are away most of the summer.

One wrinkle that Hertzberg missed is that CA Congressional districts are a product of a 2000 gerrymander that was essentially an incumbent protection plan. Rather than go for broke (or a couple more seats) the dominant Dems agree to cement the status quo division of seats. This would exaggerate the advantage to the Republicans of this initiative as the Rep districts are not very contestable.

Seems you've stirred the Republican apologists with this one, Mr. Russo. :-)

In response to the first two posts, I am not in favor of unilateral California Congressional redistricting, despite what some of my friends (whoever they are) favor. So, I agree with you, Publius, with the exception that the article lack analysis. I simply want to alert those of what the game is that is going on here and how it may have major ramifications. In addition to referencing the articles on this, and without repeating too much of what they have to say and their analysis, it struck me as curious that the usual suspects were denying involvement in this nefarious scheme.

Tom, I don't know how I am being at all unfair to the Republicans. They've thought about doing this before. This is blatantly partisan, and I don't support what was done in North Carolina. Just so the record is straight in this regard, I support the National Popular Vote plan for a compact amongst the states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. I do so because I believe in democracy with a small "d"--and I agree that the system should not be gamed and elections played on an even field. In a close election, it may favor one party or the other, but I think it's only fair.

The good news about this initiative is that it is blatantly unconstitutional-- elector choice is vested in the state legislature (Article II, Section 1.2)

The bad news is the ridiculous amount of consideration this horrible idea is getting. It's blatantly unfair for the Republicans to demand that the big Blue state has to apportion out its electoral votes, but not the big Red ones. It's outrageously inequitable, let alone transparent.

And I'm not one of those people who thinks that gerrymandering California's congressional districts to help Republicans-- all in the name of "fairness"-- is a legitimate goal. To require a "balance" in districts, as the L.A. Times keeps harping about, will result in ridiculously shaped boundaries. And that's OK?

Once again we see the repugnants playing "GOD", do as I say not as I do!! What a load of horse pucky!!! Tell them to forget it, we aren't going to play by the east coast rules of class war. I'm a 5th generation Californian and these east coast transplants can just take thier crooked DC politics and go home with it.

We do things OUR Way on the LEFT COAST.

What they can't take, they steal.

This is nothing but a way to rig an election....I don't see Ohio, Florida, Texas, Missouri, etc. splitting their votes....

This initiative is so blatant & partisan that I can't believe that it could even be taken seriously....

Republicans sure fit the adage that "power corrupts, & absolutely power corrupts absolutely"..

Republicans are afraid of losing that power in 2008, & are trying to RIG California to hold onto that power....

You're all crying wolf way too early on this initiative. Republicans and Democrats alike try to sway elections all the time. That's their business. So it's no surprise that Republicans want to make the presidential elections meaningful in California, and why not? Because of the winner-take-all vote, California has become pretty irrelevant on the national ticket for the GOP. With the current jerrymandering setup in California, virtually all incumbents are guaranteed re-election --- that's the real scandal in California. Only the entrenched can win, unless they turn their GOP or Democrat-flavored seat over to another member of their own party.
If this initiative passed, and I doubt it will, presidential candidates would spend more time here in order to get some of our electoral votes. The way it is now, the Democrats get every single presidential electoral vote no matter what the GOP does. All the GOP appears to be doing here is get its allocation of electoral votes based upon the popular vote. A pretty fair goal, even if others (the entrenched) cry foul.

Thank God this cancer of an initiative is dead in the water -- for now. Seems Republicants just can't tolerate legitimate elections. They gerrymander districts, halt ballot recounts, initiate recalls, and pull out every other obscure tactic to manipulate the voting process. The argument above -- "All the GOP appears to be doing here is get [sic] its allocation of electoral votes based upon the popular vote" -- is total horseflop. The timing of this initiative, not to mention the big-money Giuliani backers who were bankrolling this travesty, makes the motive all too clear.

The Gilded Age is back with a vengeance; corporations are calling most of the shots, and only freedom-loving Americans can put a stop to the insanity.

Post a comment