
Justin H asked: A group was given permission to start collecting signatures to qualify a measure for the June ballot. The proposed change would award 1 electoral college vote to the winner of each congressional district with the winner getting the other two votes (total electors is equal to the states number of representatives to the House plus it’s two senators).
As with 47 other states (Maine and Nebraska being the exception), California awards all of it’s electoral votes to the winner of the statewide election.
Had this been the law in 2004, 22 of the states 55 electoral votes would have gone to Bush with 33 going to Kerry (instead of Kerry getting all 55).
Link to story from San Francisco Chronicle: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/09/06/MNA6RVOC0.DTL&type=politics
I have advocated just such a change since well before the 2000 election. However, I’m troubled by this proposal because it would only affect California.
I will say this: all the smaller states better pry this doesn’t pass because if it does, the candidates will spend much of their time in California rather than writing it off as a blue state and focusing their efforts in more contested regions.
Dave: apparently you don’t live in California. When it comes to Presidential elections, we are virtually ignored by all the candidates. They come here for token visits and to raise money, but they spend little time actually campaigning. The republican’s know it’s virtually a lost cause and try to make up the votes elsewhere and the democrats simply consider California in the bag. As a result, the largest state in the union with over 10% of the country’s population and arguably the most important economy, is largely ignored. Our issues aren’t on the table and the candidates don’t really care what we have to say.
aspiring_paranormal: I generally agree with your point; however, this is basically a states rights thing. The electoral college was written into the Constitution by the founding fathers and they intended that each of the several states would hold their own elections to select electors who would them come together to vote for the President. Any real change would probably require a Constitutional amendment.
The reason the courts haven’t gotten involved with how electors are selected is because this is something specifically left up to the states by the Constitution (Article II, section 1, paragraph 2).
Dave again: You can hardly compare campaign stops in Maine and Nebraska with stops in California. Maine and Nebraska have a total of 9 electoral votes between them. That means a stop in one of those states is about trying to pickup 2-3 out of 270 needed. California has 55 electors. Even if you figured California only had 15 districts that were actually in play, that 15 votes is more than ~40 other states. That isn’t insignificant.
Benjamin