GOP electoral scheme dies in California
For a while, the Republican electoral-vote scheme in California seemed like a fairly serious effort, and certainly something to keep an eye on. Fortunately, at least for now, it’s dead.
If you’re just joining us, it was quite a clever little scam: the state GOP, far-right activists, and Swiftboat financiers, under the guise of “fairness,” wanted to split California’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district, as opposed to the current winner-take-all system. There’s no real mystery behind the effort — the goal is to deny Dems about 20 fairly reliable electoral votes, making it difficult for the party to win a presidential election.
As of last fall, the initiative was in deep trouble. But before we could move on to other matter, some members of Rudy Giuliani’s team intervened, relaunched the effort, and eyed the November ballot.
I’m pleased to note that the whole effort, sometimes called “California Counts,” was a flop.
Proponents of a controversial proposed ballot measure that would have reallocated California’s electoral college votes by congressional district — instead of the current winner-take-all system — have abandoned their effort.
“It’s not going to make the ballot this year,” said David Gilliard, a Republican political strategist organizing the campaign. “The money never materialized to put it on the ballot.”
I’m tempted to say, “Nice try,” but the truth is, the whole effort was too stupid for praise.
A morsel of good news amongst a giant pile of bad.
Hey, I'll take anything positive at this point and that surely is positive.
It never had a chance. Even if it somehow qualified for the ballot, it would have been easily defeated. No one took this seriously.
Actually, with one important caveat, it is a great idea. That is... if it were done EVERYWHERE. You can't just do it in California. However, if it were done for EVERY state it would be a much fairer method of apportioning electoral votes... and quite a boon to the democrats, as well
What I'd rather see is "GOP Dies".
it's dead? for real?
VICTORY!!!
Has anyone noticed that the election is starting to look a bit like the college BCS system? I think we should bring back all the candidates that dropped out and have a round robin. Each candidate runs head to head against each other in their own election and then the two candidates with the best record compete in the championship round election which will decide the president. That or if someone could make a two sided bracket with the champ of the dems facing the champ of the reps. That might work two. Or we could do like in 2000 and paint numbers on their backs then have a race to see who could bankrupt the country and destroy U.S. foreign relations the fastest.
some day we'll be smart enough, grown-up enough and behave well enough where we can just go ahead and vote for ourselves and skip the whole electoral-daddy step.
of course, the dems would have to scrap their super 'we don't trust the people' delegates bullshit first...
Obviously the Republicans suggested it because they benefit from it, and obviously the Dems are against it because they are lose electoral votes.
But I don't think its a scam. I think its a good rule in theory. I wish all states would do it. I'm not suggesting California pass the changes. The only way it would work is if all states made the change.
Samson- @ 6:
"Has anyone noticed that the election is starting to look a bit like the college BCS system?"
then i'd have to say the dems have a much, much higher "strength of schedule" thing going for them.
I'm all in favor of proportional counting EVERYWHERE.
But for a Californian politician or citizen to make a move that essentially destroys the power of California's size in a Presidential election is colossally stupid. Anyone who supported this should have a permanent "kick me" sign.
They have given up on '08 because the next prez will be saddled with the mess GW has made. They therefore do not want to win CA, now, but will be able to show that CA "cost" the US a good repub prez and they will be able to show cause for the effort in '12.
Poor Mitt, as Patreaus has already expressed interest in being perz in '12. (google Patreaus in 2012)
“The money never materialized to put it on the ballot.”
Republicon Solutions:
Fix the money materializer.
Pray better.
Sorry, this is going to be like every other repulsive idea from the right wing noise machine. It'll come back before the end of the film like all undead monsters do.
Gotta drive a stake through its heart, stuff holy wafers in its mouth, cut off its head, burn the body and scatter the ashes.
Herr Doktor Deth Vegetable @ 3:
Agreed.
Richard @ 2:
People took Arnold seriously...
Why don't we just abolish the Electoral College? We should never again inaugurate a president that received fewer votes than his/her opponent.
Dr. Acula @ 4:
I'm with you... I'd love to see that!
George Bush's economy is doing extremely wonderful and weird things
MSNBC News Services
updated 13 minutes ago
General Motors said Friday that 3,900 auto dealers who sell GM’s Certified Used Cars will list their entire inventories on eBay Motors, according to industry publication Automotive News. The move could radically alter the used-car business, the report said.
Mark Matthews, GM’s director of used-vehicle activities, told Automotive News that the certified used-vehicle inventory of dealers who sell GM Certified-brand vehicles will be listed on the third-party classified site starting in the second quarter.
Cuz hey, if you can't unload your junk, sell 'er on Ebay. Hey GM, here's a better idea. Why don't you build a damn car worth buying, and maybe, just maybe when it's used, people will still want it. Naw, too easy.
Umykal @ 16:
Exactly! Why isn't the Electoral College done away with?
Umykal @ 16:
That would make sense. Could never understand how anyone could call anything a democracy that elects/selects leaders like this. Most votes wins. Done. What's so hard about that?
Great!
Now the FIRST thing the Dems need to do when they take the White House (along with both the House and the Senate) is to pass a law that makes spliting the electoral votes by congressional district for EVERY state in the United States the new standard.
Republican Party
R.I.P.
Jan. 22, 2009
"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant. But when they've been 'fixed,' then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful."
Fuck you Norquist.
Country's turned into a Right Wing Nut Farm
the electoral college was instituted for two reasons...one, to protect the smaller states from the tyranny of the larger ones
two, because our founding fathers were afraid that the general population were idiots and that electoral college would protect them from the idiots
prob is now the electoral college gives too much power to the smaller states: ie the southern strategy and while the general electorate remain idiots...so too the electoral college
aportionment in california would be a good idea as it would force the two candidates to really spend money in the state (as what occured in the primary...and we needed that caishe) but unless all states change, california loses its electoral power.
ConcernedCanuck @ 20:
A popular vote is fine when we can trust the system that tabulates the votes.
I'm glad it's dead. Had me worried. I'd agree that if all the states did it at the same time it would be more fair. I'll go to the national elections knowing my Democratic Party vote will be worthless in this most red state....Idaho.
“It’s not going to make the ballot this year,” said David Gilliard, a Republican political strategist organizing the campaign. “The money never materialized to put it on the ballot.”
So this thing only flopped because of the GOP's current fundraising problems.
Wait for the base to get fired up again (some "liberal" appointments to the Supreme Court, tax increases for the top 1% will certainly do it), and this will roll around again.
HA! Slimy rethugs!!! No gerrymandering for you! To the back of the line!
Samson- @ 6:
some day we'll be smart enough, grown-up enough and behave well enough where we can just go ahead and vote for ourselves and skip the whole electoral-daddy step.
of course, the dems would have to scrap their super 'we don't trust the people' delegates bullshit first...
Up or down vote!
CoIntelPro’s Farewell to this scheme: “F*c# Y%u!”
[borrowed liberally from Jon Stewart with thanks.]
seevee @ 25:
I hear ya.
and how did the dems allow the 'special' LA County ballots?
why do they do so much to help repugs?
seevee @ 25:
there is no way a scheme like that could be fair, especially if other states do it.
CoIntelPro @ 32:
Say what?
ConcernedCanuck @ 20:
Well, it makes sense when you think about U.S. history. Each of the 13 colonies wanted to be independent states. (State, after all, means country.) We became the "United States," and no one really knew if it would work.
Not trusting "the people" was part of the equation. Also, when creating the Constitution, the framers were terrified of creating another England that would tyrannize the states remotely, like King George. The idea behind the electoral college (not to mention the bicameral legislature) was to ensure that the federal government was elected by both the people at large and the states as entities. In addition, it ensured that presidential candidates had to campaign in each and every state, and garner support throughout the land, rather than concentrating only in certain regions with high populations.
It is easily arguable that the system is flawed, archaic, and rightly abandoned. Truthfully, the idea behind the California Counts proposition makes sense if it were to be done in every single state, not just California, which is a transparent Republican power-grab.
But there's an even better way to make the popular vote count without even altering the Constitutional system of state sovereignty:
Because each state has sovereign control over how to apportion its electoral college members, each state could pass laws that appointed its electoral college members to the winner of the popular vote. In addition, each state could make the law contingent upon enough other states agreeing to do the same thing. This plan could simply erode the electoral college over time, and make it a mere Constitutional formality.
CoIntelPro @ 32:
Such 'a scheme' would be the death of the Conservative/Republican Party.
Let the DLC Democrats become the new Party of the Right, a new Progressive Green Party can take the Left wing.
freejack @ 35:
Sounds damn good to me!
seevee @ 33:
this is as fair and democratic as the superdelegates already aligned with the clintons as well as the three commissioners who are former clinton appointees.
freejack @ 35:
you do understand that the scheme was to hand over 20 electoral votes to the repugs, right?
Karen @ 34:
Very interesting post, Karen. Thanks.
Karen
"Because each state has sovereign control over how to apportion its electoral college members, each state could pass laws that appointed its electoral college members to the winner of the popular vote. In addition, each state could make the law contingent upon enough other states agreeing to do the same thing. This plan could simply erode the electoral college over time, and make it a mere Constitutional formality."
Aren't you talking about "winner take all"? Isn't that, with two exceptions, what we have now? Isn't that why my national vote is worthless.
I must be missing something...not that that's that rare. (three "that"s in a row...you don't see that everyday)
Why don’t we just abolish the Electoral College?
You can't judge a system based on one election. There are some very good reasons for the electoral college. It marginalizes the fanatics and empowers the mainstream. While it is certainly not perfect, it is not as bad as everyone seems to think.
But don't take my word for it, do a little research on the subject someplace other than blogs. Read some academic expert opinion and make up your own mind.
The Price of Freedom Is Eternal Vigilance
"never forgive, never forget"
seevee @ 40:
Nope. :)
Not winner-take-all state-by-state, which is largely what we have now. (Though there are one or two states that don't do winner-take-all electoral college apportionment.)
I was suggesting that each state could apportion its respective electoral college members to the winner of the national popular vote. So, if the Democrat wins the popular vote across the nation, California would give its electoral votes to the Democrat. As would Oregon. As would Washington, etc. If each state (or enough states) agreed to do that, the national popular vote would effectively decide the election. And it would do so with the sovereign states' blessing. Nothin' unconstitutional about that, even under the current system.
;)
the karl rovian gop isn't going to stop here...expect many more tricks and election fraud attempts leading up til nov.
CoIntelPro @ 38:
And you do understand that if such a scheme was carried out, as seevee suggested, in EVERY STATE (not just Cal.) the Conservative/Republicans wouldn't win the White House for another generation, right?
“It’s not going to make the ballot this year,”
Operative thought: "THIS YEAR"
Heads up and keep on them.
some dude named steevo @ 41:
I've read up a little bit on this meself Steevo...and you're right, it ain't perfect, and it ain't as bad as everyone thinks...but it could use some serious tweakin. It seems the fanatics have been empowered, and the mainstream has been marginalized.
Karen @ 43:
Got it. Like it. It could make the electoral college an archaic novelty....kinda like wigs on judges and lawyers.....what's up with that?
Thanks
seevee @ 48:
Yer Welcome. ;)
Hee hee. Wigs were a sign of membership in some elite class. The first six of our presidents wore them.
Ya know how at one point the two major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs? That was largely the major difference between the two. Power-to-the-Common-Man vs. Republic-Governed-by-Elites.
Prior to that it was the Federalists vs. the Democratic-Republicans. That was all about Strong-Federal-Government vs. Sovereign-People-and-States. When the Federalists died out, the Democratic-Republicans split into the Democrats vs. the Whigs. It was all about a downward shift of power.
Ok, I'll shut up now. :)
The hell of it is, as others have pointed out, that if this scheme were done nation-wide instead of in a single state, it would have been a good idea. The closer we get to one-person-one-vote, the happier any real American should be.
Personally, I've never read a defense of the Electoral College that was even the least bit convincing to me. I understand why it was enacted "back in the day" (so to speak), but it really doesn't make sense anymore. Particularly when you think of how the U.S. has grown from 13 states to 50. It really has become an unwieldy instrument.
The main criticism I've ever read against abolishing the College and switching to direct vote is that bigger states suddenly have more influence. But that's a nonsensical objection because the states wouldn't be a part of it anymore. All citizens' votes would be counted equally (barring the illegal voter suppression the GOP is playing with these days), regardless of which state they come from. Not even California is a monolith of liberalism and democrats, and suddenly the right-wingers and republicans are actually being counted rather than being forced to watch their entire state vote for the Democrat. And likewise for liberals and democrats in red states.
Seriously, I've never seen a good convincing reason to keep the Electoral College rather than switching to direct voting.
Herr Doktor Deth Vegetable @ 3:
I said the same thing when I first heard of this scheme. I've come to the conclusion that we should just amend the constitution, remove the electoral college and just make the presidential election, one person, one vote.
We should also make it a felony to deny any eligible citizen the right to vote.
I'd be in favor of a constitutional amendment that brings elections under the control of the Federal government. No more of each state doing its own stupid thing. They could enact the Delaware Plan (look it up on wikipedia if you're not familiar with it) for primaries, breaking the monopoly that Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have on the early delegate process. Of course, the amendment would never pass because it would have to be ratified by the legislatures of 38 of the 50 states, and I'm sure there's enough of them that would rather keep their arcane election laws under their own control.
So while I'm dreaming, I might as well give my other suggestion that members of the House of Representatives be switched to election by party-list proportional representation like the German Bundestag is. Each person votes for a party to represent them. Then all the seats are filled according to the percentages each party gets. According to the 2006 Harris poll, if we keep the House at the same size, that would be 117 Republicans, 157 Democrats, and 161 members of other parties. Obviously those numbers include people who claim to be independent, but would vote Republican or Democrat if given the chance. But even if it's 50 independents split among the Green, Constitution, Libertarian, Reform (does that still exist?), Socialist, Communist, and whatever other parties, that better represents the vast array of political opinions people have. But of course it would never happen, because the big two parties do all they can to marginalize 3rd party candidates, thereby keeping themselves strong.
All this will have to remain a pipe-dream until I can get myself made dictator.
Just count the popular vote. Period.
Zac @ 53:
Ooh, someone else interested in comprehensive electoral reform! Yea!
Where might you be located, Zac? If you're interested, click my name, and find the e-mail address on my page. Lemme know if you'd like to get involved with some electoral reform stuff. I written extensively on a way to bring proportional representation to the US without too much reform in what voters are used to, and making it compatible with the Supreme Court's ruling on Constitutional Voting Rights. I'm in touch with some organizations involved in these issues, and eventually want to work with them to get a kind of movement going.
Heh, I dream big too. ;)
Wily @ 11:
Let's see...California has 55 electoral college votes out of 538, or 10.2%. California has 37 million out of 300 million US citizens, or 12.3%.
In other words, California would have MORE representation if the votes were tallied nationally, not state by state.
Clearly, you didn't put much thought into this. In more than one sense.
That repulican "Dirty Trick" was also hidden beneath a pile of amendments, Like aid for children with cancer! How low can repubslickens get for power in America?
Comments are closed on this entry