Yet another proposal to change the way California casts its 55 electoral votes may result in voters being so confused that they'll vote down all three initiatives. Note that the report states, "A surprise third initiative filed last week by a small, relatively unknown group would allocate electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in California once a majority of states adopt a similar system." First of all, it is NOT proportional allocation by popular vote; it is allocation by congressional district like the Hiltachk (Republican) initiative. Secondly, the proviso "once a majority of states adopt a similar system" makes it sound more reasonable than the Hiltachk initiative, but is it? Which states? Red states? Blue states? A majority consisting of mostly small states could total far less than 270 electoral votes, which constitutes an electoral majority.
While we're going crazy with filing one initiative after another, it might be important to point out that the 1969 Maine law and the 1991 Nebraska law allocating those states' electoral votes by congressional district were enacted by their legislatures. The US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 states: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...." The legislature may direct the manner of appointing electors, but may the people do so via a ballot initiative? It may be that James Madison trumps Hiram Johnson.
----------
How to divvy up state's electoral votes?
3 initiatives in works to change winner-takes-all
By John Marelius
San Diego Union Tribune
2 September 2 2007
California voters may get the opportunity to dramatically alter the 2008 presidential landscape by changing the way the state allocates its electoral votes.
Three rival initiatives have been proposed for the June 2008 ballot, although all are in very preliminary stages and it is unclear which, if any, will qualify for the ballot.
A Republican plan would allocate California's 55 electoral votes by congressional district, rather than statewide winner-takes-all as it is now. In 2004, that would have meant an extra 22 electoral votes for President Bush and a much more comfortable ride to re-election.
A Democratic option would give all of the electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of how California voted. It only would become effective if enough states whose electoral votes added up to at least 270 - the number needed to win - joined in.
A surprise third initiative filed last week by a small, relatively unknown group would allocate electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in California once a majority of states adopt a similar system.
There long has been scattered grumbling in academic and political circles that the U.S. Electoral College is unfair. Sentiment to change it or abolish it altogether has never reached critical mass - not even after the disputed 2000 presidential election in which Republican George W. Bush was declared the winner, even though Democrat Al Gore received the most popular votes.
FULL STORY
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment