The Story Behind the Revival of the California Electoral College Scheme and the Dots That Connect to the Giuliani Campaign

You're probably right, it will fail as a proposition.

However that doesn't mean its a totally bad idea, if only so at the state level.

I'd rather see this on a national level so that California, Texas, New York, Florida, or other bigger states don't just get to throw huge numbers of electoral votes one direction or another.

Moving towards a popular vote system does us all a service. Moving so each electoral vote counts separately, moves us closer towards a pure straight popular vote.

But as you infer, each party has a stake in it and will do what's in its best interest.

Makes it hard to vote, when your vote does not matter.

Angeldecoys: I think were on the same page, if not the same paragraph. I suuport the national popular vote effort that would have states sufficient to elect a president join in an interstate compact to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. That way, a vote is a vote, and it doesn't matter where it comes from and you will have a truly national campaign. Kerry would have won in 2000 and Bush would have clearly won in 2004, given their national vote totals. No more Rutherford B. Hayes.

Russo: Rutherford B. Hayes? A bit 19th century, that's for sure. Great beard.

If the elctoral college had been different from the start, I'm sure we can intellectualize many elections that might have had different results. Imagine Federalist Burr over Anti-Federalist Jefferson instead of a tie in 1800.

Wish it had been more thought out with the 12th and 24th amendments.

Question. As you're more familiar with CA (and probably national politics) has there been any movement on 'Nationally' changing the way each state's electoral votes are counted?

Has this been couched (nationally) as a state issue? Or is it the same old arguments of big state vs. small state, each with its own dominant party holding onto what's comfortable?

Or do you see it as a 12th/24th amendment issue that will be only changed with an US amendment not yet introduced?

There is a new twist to the dialogue on the Electoral Reform Initiative. In the event that the June 3, 2008 deadline is missed the Initiative will be on the Nov. 4, 2008 General Election Ballot.
Since the Electoral College meets on Dec. 1, 2008 the passed Initiative would be in effect. The Democrat candidate would lose 24 electoral votes and lose the National election.

Russo: Sorry, my US History is a bit shallow (wife teaches Historical Law). Regarding Rutherford, Tilden would have been an interesting president that's for sure. Albeit, reconstruction would have lasted for generations more.

I do see your point.

There is a new twist to the dialogue on the Electoral Reform Initiative. In the event that the June 3, 2008 deadline is missed the Initiative will be on the Nov. 4, 2008 General Election Ballot.
Since the Electoral College meets on Dec. 1, 2008 the passed Initiative would be in effect. The Democrat candidate would lose 24 electoral votes and lose the National election.

Bring it on!!! First, it's illegal because law in California is very clear that this is not an issue that can deided by an initiative. As SoS Bowen said, anyone with $2 million can fund an initiative even it is "My Mother is a dog." Second, the CA Dems have run a successful campaign previously to run out whenever you hear of a signature gatherer and tell people the truth. It's a great way to educate the public.
But seriously, let's not
Bring it On again -what a waste of time again!

Tony: No doubt California would lose Democratic electoral votes from more rural areas. It would also gain some from urban aras in more conservative states.

Not being a political scientist, I don't know what the net difference would be on a National scale but if every state were to change the way it counts electoral votes, then the dynamic would be different in how candidates campaign. If counted by district that would level the 'playing field' and be closer to a more popular vote. Not perfect but closer.

That have to happen at the national level. I don't see any larger state (regardless of party in power) adopting such an idea unless it was uniform accross the country.

AngelDecoys: The National Popular Vote bill passed by the legislature last year and vetoed by the Governor would only go into effect if states with a majority of the electoral vote joined in. Then it would guarantee that the Electoral College elect the winner of the most votes in the country. You can read more about it in the Electoral College topic section of the page from the navigation bar, or look at this article.

It is not an attempt to do it in one state or group of states to favor one candidate or another.

The National Popular Vote certainly is creative, i'll give it that. I can see why the Governor vetoed it.

So if the voters of California all voted for the 'A' party candidate, but the 'B' party candidate won everywhere else, CA's electoral votes would automatically be thrown towards the 'B' party candidate? That's not exactly what I had in mind for electoral reform.

At least by designating an electoral vote for each district (over the CA total), a portion (of electoral votes) from CA could go to the candidate they vote for. That too would NOT require a constitutional amendment.

So I guess one can assume that on a national level, the democratic party also has no plans for electoral reform. That is, other than what is comfortable. (They run the house and senate, do they not?)

I predicted three weeks ago that this issue would not go away. If anything, dropping out for awhile was a ploy designed to get the Dems' guard down.

Predictions:

it will be on the November ballot, it will win, both the Republican state and federal supreme courts will ratify it, on the grounds that legislatures can determine how electors are appointed any way they want to, and it will indeed throw the election to Guiliani.

I mean, there is no way in the world that Republican courts are going to rule against a Republican victory.

p.s.

Here's the strategey behind a delaying ploy: if the initiative is on the November ballot, it gives Dems little time to appeal. The MSM will immediately begin calling them whiners, and courts will rush their partisan decisions. Even better for the Republicans, if it's on the November ballot rather than June's, Dems have no time or fore-knowledge to retaliate in other states where they control the legislatures.

Delaying the initiative is a win-win for Republicans, and they know it. There will be a whole bundle of "reform" initiatives on the November ballot, and this will be one of them. Get ready for Gore II.

It really isn't in the Republicans long-term interest to keep mucking with the electoral process and using legal procedures to thwart the clear preference of the majority, as they did in 2000. Democrats are tired of the country's legal system being treated as an appendage of the Republican National Committee and if the Democratic candidate wins 53% of the national vote but loses the presidency because of Republican chicanary I think you are likely to see real civil unrest. Governmental legitimacy is a precarious thing and you can only go so far. The big losers in this sort of thing will be those with wealth, as those who have been dispossessed will turn on them first. I presume that those with wealth thing they can hire armed guards (just like Latino America) but do you really want to live in a society like that? And armed guards can always be bribed or sometimes act independently.
The Bush administration has acted worse than the Nixon administration in its undermining of the political process.

Just as a technical point, certification of the election probably would not take place until after the electors vote, particularly given the reliance on paper ballots. So a November appearance on the ballot may be too late.

It might NOT go down in flames. Democrats are going to play hell getting their base to the polls TWICE.

Someone should pose a question to Mr. Rollins, who always seems like a sensible fellow, as to whther or not he thinks the American public will stand for three election thefts in a row by the Republican party.

Neither the Democrats nor Republicans have a majority of the voters in California. Both parties need to appeal to decline to state voters.

Ever so often one party or the other tries to put something on the ballot that unfairly favors it. That something usually goes down the tubes as decline to state and voters of the other party vote it down.

With the Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times and other newspaper denouncing the proposed proposition it is not going to be a stealth proposition.

Democratic websites are going to raise a lot of money opposing this proposition.

Democratic campaign materials can attack this proposal for the better part of a year.

I have great faith that we can beat this proposal and make money at the same time.

the repubs integrity went out the window 8 years, ago, now i see where pat robertson had endorsed guiliani as the repub candidate for POTUS; i see more cheating and denied votes forthcoming, some have to win by any means necessary. 2008 will be a repeat of 2000 & 2004.

is guiliani so desperate, that he is willing to sell his soul at any price. what does that do to his credibilty to be labeled as a cheater? beats the be-jeebies of me. i always thought he had just a little bit more character than to be a part of such a scheme as to try and change electoral votes in a state that he does not live in.

Post a comment

Commenters: You must preview your comment before posting. And please only hit "Post" once; it may take a while, but your comment is being processed. Thanks.