I'd be happy if Democrats announced a counter-initiative that says California will do this if and only if Texas does. Democrats lose a little more from that deal, but it'd certainly show who actually cared about making every vote count and who only cared about their own party's votes counting.

Won't happen, of course.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution permits this, but it also requires the House of Representatives then to decide who ultimately gets the votes from that State. Given the current composition of the House, I can see this quickly turning into (pardon the vulgarity), a clusterfuck.

How about amending the Constitution to eliminate the electoral college entirely and go to direct election by the people, with immediate runoff voting???

>"why not go to direct election by the people, with immediate runoff voting"

This won't happen because each of the major parties seek to exploit the current electoral system to their own advantage.

It is basically the same reason significant campaign finance reform cannot be enacted by the congress. Each side actively seeks to exploit the system to gain advantage.

This is a form of "structural corruption".

i.e. Corruption is part of the basic structure and cannot be corrected without dismantling the structure itself. That outcome is not in the interests of those in control... who depend on it for income and power.

Hence, only the intervention of forces outside the system can bring about meaningful change.

Historically, this means people in the streets with torches, general strikes, rebel armies etc.

Talk about corruption. We have examples no. 1 & 2 for why both referenda and term limits are fundamentally anti-democratic.

They promote those with the greatest advertising budget while undermining ever other group or organization.

Maybe you guys ought to have a referendum outlawing referenda. That way, you'd maybe bring the democratic process to where it was before the current binge.

Although direct election by the people, with immediate runoff voting is a most reasonable suggestions, the Repbulicans won't let it happen, because they tend to do better in smaller states. They tend to win disproportionately many electoral votes compared to their popular vote. The 2000 election was a good example of why the current system is better for Republicans.

It's hard for me to believe that CA will pass this proposition, even if it gets on the ballot. It would clearly hurt the Dems. And, it's not something where the voters can see a direct benefit to themselves.

Rather than fight this head-on the Dems should counter with a proposal to eliminate the electoral college entirely.

In an ideal world, wouldn't this sort of initiative be a great thing? Should those of us committed to the democratic process get behind changes that make our electoral outcomes more closely resemble the preferences of the electorate?

Certainly, splitting only the vote of major Democratic strongholds amounts to just another way to game the system. Would there be some chance, though, of California setting a larger trend in electoral reforms like this if the initiative were to pass?

The idea is to get the Dems to be liberal minded in liberal strongholds where they embrace democracy and diversity, but keep the solid South which is less solid than it used to be.

I agree with most of these points, but I'm not sure that Gov. Schwartzenegger's conversion to moderate policies is 100% sincere. At heart, he is a partisan competitor who wants to revive the GOP in California. He may see this an opportunity to distract the Dems--he's done it before.

Anyone who suggests that this is "more democratic" is severely deluded. The electoral college vastly amplifies the voting power of small states, splitting the states into congressional districts and then awarding the two "senate" electoral votes to the victor would mean an even greater amplification of that voting power. This isn't about democracy, it is about giving away votes to the Republicans. A bizarre notion in any case because they have demonstrated that they are unable to govern.

To the commenter who advised ignoring this and instead trying to abolish the EC, with all due respect I say -
Are you nuts? That's EXACTLY what Rove et al want you to say, knowing that until the day a GOP candidate loses the EC while winning the popular vote, the EC won't be changed - and if this passes that will never happen.

The GOP is in power to no more extent because of naive (to be charitable) thinking like this.

As for a counterproposal - I wrote a diary at Kos earlier this week on this, although mine was that the next three largest states (Texas, Florida and New York) would also have to do this. And I do think this is the way to go - that way you support the idea behind this, but present a counterproposal that suggests you get the impetus.

As far as this getting CA more attention - won't happen. 52 of the 53 CDs are one party dominated because of the way CA reapportionment is done - you need 2/3 approval in the legislature, so basically every 10 years incumbents are protected and competition is made very limited.

This initiative should scare every citizen. I think that Kevin is rather naive in asserting that good government types or Schwarzenegger won't go along. Good government types are abject suckers for this sort of thing. They see California leading the nation into a more responsive voting future. Arnold on the other hand would like to back a wining initiative. He's a moderate now and everybody seems to love him. From what I hear from the MSM he has balanced California's budget in perpetuity and the state will never have financial problems again. The national GOP has developed this with the intention of implementing it for the '08 election. The GOP needs this and needs it badly.

Getting rid of the electoral college and determining presidents by popular votes would radically change campaigns. Cities would become the new states and candidates would have to pander to urban areas as they do now to various "swing" states. Rural issues would disappear after the early primaries/caususes. Candidates would rarely if ever visit the small states. It would make for very different agendas and themes in politics.

A better idea would be to have the state's electoral votes go to the winner of the national popular vote. Could that be proposed as an alternative or is it too late.

I am in favor of it, and hope more states do the same.

Listen to Kevin, put down a reform long overdue concerning participatory democracy so that Dems can have an advantage of one state.

Unless other states go along with the proposal so that it becomes universal, this is an eminently stupid idea.

I'm tired of having to respond to yet another GOP initiative that Kevin correctly characterized as "crackpot", another in a long line of Republican attempts to protect what has become its inherent corruption.

Rather, the next administration ought to give serious consideration to the idea of prosecuting the Republican Party as an organization under federal RICO statutes. Certainly, its collective and well-documented activities over the past six years to cover up, enable and perpetuate the Bush administration's litany of misconduct and misdeeds more properly reflects that of an ongoing racketeering enterprise and concern, than that of a bona fide political organization.

AS is a smart guy - I wonder if he is that much invested in a GOP president next time around. But he does want reform - some of which is not totally bad, like changing the way reapportionment is done in California. He might use his potential opposition to this as a bargaining chip to get Dems to go along with one of his ideas.

IF this were a nationwide plan, I'd be for it

Jim
Your naivit is staggering.
Do you realize that if this plan had been in effect in 1960, Nixon would have won?
Or that in 1976 Ford would have won?
And there is no case where a Dem losing the popular vote would have won the EV?
Congressional district EC voting favors the GOP - they get the advantage of having more small states (get more statewide 2 vote wins + states with fewer than normal size Cngressinal districts).

People think before you agree things sound good - that's why ideas like this get passed.

this will only work if all states follow the same method. It would have to be nationwide.

NO IT WON'T - it will ONLY help the GOP - wake up people!

Certainly, splitting only the vote of major Democratic strongholds amounts to just another way to game the system. Would there be some chance, though, of California setting a larger trend in electoral reforms like this if the initiative were to pass?

No. Any more simple questions? To elaborate . . .

The warping effect of the electoral college distribution is, along with gerrymandering and their grip on the national media, the only thing keeping the Republicans in competition as a national political party right now. If divine intervention suddenly arranged public offices per the actual distribution of beliefs among voters, the Republicans would be down to about 30% of governors, seats in legislatures, judicial positions, etc. Their current leadership would have to be swept out of office to return the party to the 50% of voters it honestly represented a generation ago. The ruling thugocracy will fight to their last breath to keep things as they are.

The ONLY thing reforms like this will do is make it more likely there will be a repeat of 2000, only this time the Dems might win the popular vote by 3-5% but still lose the EV.

This is craziness people - the lack of visceral grasp of this in a nutshell why Karl Rove is such an evil genius - he counts of gullible Dems to be his patsies.

Silly Voters.

I hacked your voting machine. "absent wins in a landslide!!!11!1!"

kthx bye.

I'd be curious to know what the 2000 result would have been if ALL states had done this proportional electors thing. In theory it seems to better reflect the popular vote, but of course it only makes sense if all states do it, not just the blue ones.

You should be worried about this initiative. The GOP is going to try to get this on the June 2008 ballot, not the February presidential primary ballot. The June ballot will be focused on state and local offices and have a bunch of initiatives, and the consequences of this particular proposal will not be apparent to many voters. Believe me, it will be presented as a commons sense, democratic proposal, without a partisan agenda. On the face of it it seems quite reasonable and democratic to have the electors vote in accordance with the popular vote, but how many people know that only two small states in the nation require that. The Democratic Party must start educating people right now on this and fight it hard

As a person who lives in Ohio, I can tell you about stolen elections. Blackwell, Rove, and their brethern worked overtime to make sure this state went for Bush in 2004. Putting that aside, however, I would like to see this proposal put into law in Ohio and everywhere else across the United Stars. It would totally change the way that some states get ignored while others get way too much attention. I think that adopting this approach nationwide would be much easier than outright abolishing the electoral college.

...Cities would become the new states and candidates would have to pander to urban areas...
You mean candidates would tailor their message to people instead of sheep, cattle and fields?

The usual one-sided morality going on the Dems

No one-sided morality here. Hell, the first poster suggested we do the same in Texas.

Greetings, Recall the original purpose behind the Electoral College and it seems this is a supposed step toward trying to reflect the populous vote versus a declared winner. Humorously this seems to reflect the current silliness in our society where everyone should get some prize even the poor loser. I think it premature to state one party or another takes the advantage, when actually the alert, quick witted and aggressive regardless of party will adapt an to the new rules. No, this move is not reform but a confusing distraction in the real struggle for control; it will further confuse the voter and further disenfranchise him from our American process.

the Dems, who stole Wisconsin the last two elections

Gee Dave, got any evidence for this? You know, like Secretary of States Ken Blackwell guaranteeing a Rep victory in Ohio in 2004 or Katherine Harris of Florida in 2000 disenfranchising voters.

And yet ... I recall potential scenarios in both '00 and '04 that had Gore and Kerry losing the popular vote but winning in the EC. Democrats are not entirely averse to racking up lots of little states, either: New England, Delaware, Hawaii, the DC ... if Californians feel that their wishes are best represented in the EC by a quasi-proportional split of their votes, why not? But if California is both true blue and jealous of its huge bloc of votes, why would their voters ever approve the initiative? I don't see that much to get incensed about here.

Since the demographic changes of the U.S. will ensure Democratic Party dominance in the future, it does not really matter.

The real quesiton is how will the U.S. function as a one party state after the Republicans becoem irrelevant.

Holy s*** this is a bad idea.

Gerrymandering is a scourge on our democracy. If this thing passes in every state, then gerrymandering will choose the president! Whoever gerrymanders more districts to their party wins the electoral college.

Nobody should be in favor of this, Democrat or Republican.

Bruce - If I recall correctly, had this been done nationally in 2000 Bush would have won by 20+ EVs, not the 3(?) that he did. This always increases the GOP edge

Ned - There are no statewide races in the June 2006 primary. None. But we might have a gay-marriage initiative to increase turnout.

There is one route for stopping this - the California Sec'y of State (currently Jerry Brown) and/or the Atty General (also a Dem) can challenge a referendum up front. Since the US Constitution says that the means of how the electors are allocated (as Scalia pointed out in Gore v Bush, they can just tell them how to vote) it is arguable that a referendum to change the system might not be constitutional. (There are effective arguments either way). Unfortunately, all roads lead to the worse-than-in-2000 US Supreme Court.

I see that Dave has become officially annoying. (So - What took so fuckin' long??? I would bet it was the completely unsubstantiated bullshit accusations of a heretofore unknown "election theft" by Democrats in Wisconsin.)

There is an easy way to get past this issue - get both parties to agree up front that the candidate with the most votes will become President - the second place candidate will direct enough of his/her electors to vote for the winner, or otherwise make sure that 2000 does not happen again.

The Dem candidate will readily agree; the GOP likely not. But the public will be on the side of the Dem candidate on this.

This is a no-brainer folks - the DNC should start going with this right away.

Kevin, if this initiative gets more serious then Arnold could gain the role of Republican kingmaker. He won't need to pretend to be a moderate any longer, and the RNC and Republican candidates will beat a trail to his door. He loves that sort of attention. He will know now crucially important he is to them, and will be able to demand fealty and a prominent place in the convention spotlight. Moreover, with the Republicans in California now having an Electoral College voice in the election, he could come out of that moderate RINO closet and be a real conservative again.

Calling all constitutional lawyers - based on the US constititution, and Gore v Bush 2000, which reiterated the right of legislatures to control means of allocation electoral votes, could the California legislature state firmly and clearly that it is as it has been winner take all?

And California lawyers - would such a resolution need the signature of the governor?

These are key and crucial questions the DNC must be dealing with immediately.

Blue Girl, Red State: "I would bet it was the completely unsubstantiated bullshit accusations of a heretofore unknown 'election theft' by Democrats in Wisconsin."

And, taking Dave's specious logic to its conclusion, we probably must also suppose that Wisconsin Democrats secretly conspired to put State Contract Officer Georgia Thompson in prison, solely to eventually embarrass U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic when a federal appeals court in Chicago subsequently vacated Ms. Thompson's conviction on corruption charges and ordered her immediate release from incarceration.

Donald: That has to be the case!

I actually blogged that case and Kevin linked it here back in April.

That is the case that should have filled the streets with a pitchfork wielding mob...but the American Idol season finale was coming up...

hopeless pedant: "There is one route for stopping this - the California Sec'y of State (currently Jerry Brown) and/or the Atty General (also a Dem) can challenge a referendum up front."

Actually, Jerry Brown is California's Attorney General, and Debra Bowen is its Secretary of State. But aside from that minor quibble, your point is certainly well-taken.

Donald - duh, that's right, when the Dem Sec'y of State resigned, AS named a Repub

Thanks for the correction. I hope Brown has standing in this.

Blue Girl: "That is the case that should have filled the streets with a pitchfork wielding mob...but the American Idol season finale was coming up..."

And as Media Matters reported last April, the so-called mainstream media had a big hand in burying the Georgia Thompson story, mostly by not reporting it.

Further, Ms. Thompson may be free and back on the job, but she's now in serious debt and also lost her house in the process. I sure hope that she sues those who pushed this preposterous story to gain a wrongful indictment and conviction.

The USA who played ball by the Rovian rules should lose his license and his liberty.

hopeless pedant: "... when the Dem Sec'y of State resigned, AS named a Repub."

And that Repub, Bruce McPherson, was defeated in the 2006 election by State Sen. Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach).

Ironically, in 2003 I came this close to moving to Sacramento to work for the previous Democratic Sec'y of State, Kevin Shelley, who subsequently resigned under some serious ethical clouds of his own.

It fell to one of Shelley's former colleagues in the California Legislature, a Pasadena Democrat and old family friend who -- upon hearing from my mother that I was about to accept Shelley's job offer -- strongly urged me in no uncertain terms to reconsider what he said would otherwise become a decision I'd soon regret. It was a no-bullshit talking-to from someone whom I've always considered a political mentor, for which I'm now very grateful.

It's going to be pretty easy to shoot down this little sneak attack by the Repubs.

The basic argument is that if it goes through, California loses all its now extremely impressive clout in the Presidential race. Nobody's going to give a shit about winning over votes in California because so little is going to be at stake -- probably only two or three electoral votes really will have much chance of swinging. California would become about as important as Nevada.

And of course Democrats in particular will have to vote against their own interests, because they'd have to give up any number of electoral votes to Republicans. And the problem for the Republicans in the first place is that there are way too many Democrats.

I wish you were right, Frankly.
But the problem is that California is not considered in play at all - neither Gore nor Kerry bought a single TV ad, nor made any campaign stops, in the state after their respective conventions except for fundraising.
It won't be more in play than it is now - that's one argument that needs to be made.

Does this proposal have the required signatures to qualify for the ballot? Plus, the California GOP is "swimming in red ink" with only $1.1 million on hand and $4.2 million in debt. This is a sneaky way to get a GOP initiative on the state ballot without spending any state GOP money. California state ballot initiatives used to be a good idea, but in recent years they've become a tool to pass bad ideas that end up haunting the state for years to come.

I'm sure Karl Rove will find the money to get it on the ballot.

They have until November to get the signtures.

Pedant is absolutely correct. I hope (desperately) that those upthread who are arguing that this is a good idea "if only it were nationally implemented" are GOP trolls trying to split Dems. I hope that, because if those folks are really Dems and they really think this is a good idea -- even if instituted nationally -- I shudder at what might happen next year. And if you all ARE Dems, I really hope for your sake you don't follow politics very closely. Because if you do, your thinking on this matter is about as clear as a January day in Seattle.

People, this isn't hard. The proposal would allocate one EV for every house district. Most house districts are spoken for, and the few swings bring the totals this side or that side of 50%, depending on the national mood. Maybe the Dems have a small margin. But look at a map someday. The Repubs can count on 8-10 more states in any given close national election. That's 16-20 more EV's under this system.

If this system were national, only a landslide could produce a Dem win. Barely.

Sheesh. Come ON. Try not to be so easily duped in the cause of "good government". It really doesn't take a lot of effort. Just try.

There already is a well organized effort to sidestep the Electoral College and it doesn't involve unilateral disarmament by the blue states. It's called the National Popular Vote bill. Here's the one-sentence description:

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia will win the Presidency.

And here's the URL: www.nationalpopularvote.com

Several states are in various levels of consideration of this bill. The California Assembly and Senate passed the bill and put it on Arnold's desk and he vetoed it. So much for Republican good intentions.

As a conservative Republican, I am completely opposed to the plan to divide California's electoral votes. While that plan would benefit the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, the long-term damage to the republic would be substantial. The electoral system has worked exceedingly well for the past 200 years in forcing candidates to address broad consituencies. The US has not been plagued by the division of power among scores of minor parties, as has happened in other democracies (see, e.g., Italy and Israel). Let's leave well enough alone.

DBL,

If you really are a Republican, you should be concerned about the Republican being competative enough to keep the U.S. a two party state. California is becoming a deeper shade of blue every year. The demographic changes of the U.S. all favor the Democratic Party and will probably ensure that the U.s. is a one party state much like California is today.

Let's assume this initiative makes it to the ballot, and passes, and is deemed constitutional. The electoral college vote might just then be so close as to throw the election to the US House. Maybe the Dems should look into helping the Alaska and Wyoming Democrats win their House seats, instead of yelling about how useless the electoral system has become.

There's no threat. Like Mithrandir said, if it gets on the ballot, then the legislature (Dem-controlled) just puts a similar spoiler initiative in the ballot that the change would only take place if X number of states also enact similar legislation. That'll get more votes than the GOP's initiative, without spending too much $$$.

The ballot initiative would likely fail, but Democrats will have to work to defeat it since it actually embodies some ideas that left-leaning people actually want to see, but on a national basis.

As for the idea that the electoral college will be abandoned, that is a complete pipedream. No state in the union will willingly give up relative power and influence in choosing the president, and such a change would cause far more than 1/4 of the states to lose such power.

Congressional districts are gerrymandered in most states to the benefit of the dominant party. Even if California packs every possible Repugnant into as few congressional districts as possible, the Repugnant Party would still be benefitting from an electoral "welfare" program -- kind of like "term limitations" being nothing but a welfare program for third-rate Repugnant candidates. If this program were adopted by all the states, we would have a built-in base set of electoral votes for each party and the candidates would only have to campaign in the handful of districts that are actually contestable. The effect would be elections fought in only selected selected districts (e.g., inner suburbs). Residents of inner cities (i.e., minority voters) would have no incentive to vote and that would have serious implications for all statewide races (e.g., the Senate). This is as reprehensible and intellectually dishonest as the Repugnants' "ballot safety" programs that put dozens of pollwatchers into inner city voting precincts.

"The Democratic Party and its allies will spend boatloads of money to defeat it. The odds of success are very, very slim."

I disagree, Kevin. California voters, like American voters in general, are, in the bulk, stupid. They voted in term llimits, didn't they? The "Democratic" voters recalled Davis and elected The Governator, didn't they? They recalled Rose Bird (going way back) didn't they?

I think the electorate is tired of bond initiatives, but I will bet you they'll see this as a cure for the 2000 election of Bush, and not as a problem.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution permits this, but it also requires the House of Representatives then to decide who ultimately gets the votes from that State.

Uh, what?

I think you need to reread that.

Certainly, splitting only the vote of major Democratic strongholds amounts to just another way to game the system. Would there be some chance, though, of California setting a larger trend in electoral reforms like this if the initiative were to pass?

Yes, because when people see Californians figuratively slitting their own throats, everyone else will rush to follow.

Let's assume this initiative makes it to the ballot, and passes, and is deemed constitutional. The electoral college vote might just then be so close as to throw the election to the US House.

Unlikely even in that case; it would require no majority, which requires a minor candidate to get at least one EV; usually, that only happens with a faithless elector, and even then only when it has no chance of affecting the outcome. Conceivably, a Green might win, say, San Francisco, and get an EV that way, but that's still a far out scenario that is unlikely to happen particularly if there are polls showing that it is plausible that it throw the election to the House.

The ballot initiative would likely fail, but Democrats will have to work to defeat it since it actually embodies some ideas that left-leaning people actually want to see, but on a national basis.

I can't think of any left-leaning person that favors by-congressional-district apportionment of electoral votes on a national basis.

I can think of some that would see proportional allocation of state electoral votes by statewide popular vote shares as desirable nationally, and more that would favor a national popular vote. But neither of those are the same as by-district allocation.

Can someone tell me why the Hiltchak initiative that is still pending title and summary is getting so much attention, while the Andrade initiative (07-0016) with essentially the same substantive content (plus, it stops Presidential electors from being paid) that is already circulating isn't getting any attention?

This might be the most corrupt thing I've ever heard....A Republican lawyer (geez, no ulterior motives there) wants to split the electoral votes of the state with the largest EV total...Now, perhaps this could work IF EVERY other state split their votes as well...But there is no way that EVERY other state would change their laws for this to be ready for election day 2008...

You can't piecemail the electoral college, it has to be done everywhere, or not at all...

The Sacramento lawyers proposal wreaks of sour grapes - nothing more....

There's a really interesting legal issue here. A few of the above commentators have noted the Article II, section 1 issue--specifically, the initiative would violate the provision of the Constitution that requires that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors"?

The legally neat thing about this is that it would completely switch the left/right battle lines from Bush v. Gore. There, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that the clause should be read literally, to give federal courts final say over the intent of "the Legislature" -- rather than deferring to the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida law, as is usually done. Here, the Democrats would probably want to adopt that concurring opinion to argue that "the Legislature" should be construed formalistically.

To cmdicely! Why I don't get respect!
The major media has gone bananas because a celeb has filed a duplicate initiative that is incomplete. I have been working on this issue for a very long time. I filed the initiative 07-0016 on May 10, 2007, and it was approved on July 2. Now raising $2 million for signatures
This issue will be on the ballot on June 3, 2008.
$20 million will be spent to try to defeat it.
California will select the president if it passes. website ElectoralReformCalifornia.com
3000 hits so far.

Fascinating arguments on both sides...the dems must remember the dominant color in all of those "precinct" red/blue maps in the last 2 elections! Small wonder they wish to continue the stranglehold on California and N.Y. where all their "entitlement" constituents can continue to blindly support the their socialist masters. Hmmmm, I think Al-Qaeda should be allowed to vote also. That is one sure way to shore up democract numbers.