California Electoral votes (Part 2)

[MODU]

I could not find the original thread on this, so if someone comes across it, please post the link.

California's proposed EV allocation change is back in the news on CNN's website:

"California voters could alter 2008 race"

California voters are inclined to support a proposed ballot measure that Democratic leaders fear could doom the party's chances of winning back the White House in 2008 by giving Republicans a chunk of the state's large block of Electoral College votes, according to results of a poll released this week.

By a margin of 47 percent to 35 percent, the Field Poll found voters supported a GOP-inspired ballot measure replacing the state's winner-take-all method for awarding electoral votes with a system that would give one vote to the candidate who won the most votes in each of the state's 53 congressional districts and two votes to the statewide winner.

(Cont...)

[Verily]

Similar support was initially recorded for the Colorado referendum back in 2004. *Yawn*

[bergie72]

There's a video on msnbc.com about it too.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=4de34dbe-1cf1-422a-a46b-be093772dd17&t=m5

I'd like to see more states go to EV by CD.  Would make the race a lot more interesting.  Have to pass a ton of gerrmandering laws to counteract the 'creative' geography the states will use to create 'safe' pockets.

[HappyWarrior]

I pray to God this does'nt happen.  If it does we Democrats will be shut out of elections for good.

[AkSaber]

I like the winner-take-all system just the way it is.

[Jaggerjack]

I like the winner-take-all system just the way it is.

[jimrtex]

Similar support was initially recorded for the Colorado referendum back in 2004.

This would be voted on at the June primary (California split its regular primary off when it went to the February 5th presidential primary).   In Colorado, it was voted on at the same election it was supposedly going to take effect.  The Colorado Constitution has a schedule for implementing constitutional amendments, which takes into account canvassing, the possibility of a recount, and proclaimation by the Governor.  The amendment purported to modify the schedule ("If this amendment passes, it will modify the schedule for determining whether it passes").  It would have also have modified the meaning of what a vote for an individual presidential candidate meant.  It was flawed in its method of determining the number of electors, and the conditions under which a recount should be held.  It was funded by Californians who admitted that they had chosen Colorado because it was easier to get on the ballot.  Once it was realized what a mess it could create if the amendment was passed, all the major papers in the state editorialized against it, regardless of whether they approved of the general proposition.

In California, the amendment is being proposed by Californians, it will be voted on in advance of its actual application.  It's language is straightforward and easy to understand.  It uses a scheme that is already in use in Maine and Nebraska with no discernible problems.  It is initiated legislation, so it doesn't muck with the California Constitution.

[barefootguy]

The problem with this is that CA will go from being worth 55 electoral votes to being essentially worth at most 4 or 5, as no one will get a wider margin than that.  It's B.S., large states are already getting screwed by the electoral college.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Party break down:

Democrats 41-42 against
Republicans 57-28 in favor
Others 43-34 in favor

[bullmoose88]

Party break down:

Democrats 41-42 against
Republicans 57-28 in favor
Others 43-34 in favor

Those democratic numbers don't look so good for their party.  If this passes, which I hope it does, the dems should (and hopefully would) push for this in North Carolina, and any other GOP state where they still control the branches of state government.  They may want to try in a state that uses the referendum/proposition process first, rather than it look like a partisan (or as partisan) as the NC plan looked.

[Reluctant Republican]

This won't pass. All the Democrats need to do is point out that it will hand the Republicans the election and watch support for the measure collapse. I think it's a bit silly, myself.

[StateBoiler]

It would be a good idea if every state did it simultaneously.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It hasn't gotten to the signature phase yet, but there is a Prop. in the works called "The National Popular Vote for President Act" that is the interstate compact that Arnold vetoed. In addition, it would supercede any Props that effect electoral vote that passed in the same election but got fewer votes.

[Verily]

It hasn't gotten to the signature phase yet, but there is a Prop. in the works called "The National Popular Vote for President Act" that is the interstate compact that Arnold vetoed. In addition, it would supercede any Props that effect electoral vote that passed in the same election but got fewer votes.

But that would only become active if other states passed it, too, and so far there's just Maryland (and probably soon Illinois). That's only 86 EVs with California included.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It hasn't gotten to the signature phase yet, but there is a Prop. in the works called "The National Popular Vote for President Act" that is the interstate compact that Arnold vetoed. In addition, it would supercede any Props that effect electoral vote that passed in the same election but got fewer votes.

But that would only become active if other states passed it, too, and so far there's just Maryland (and probably soon Illinois). That's only 86 EVs with California included.

It would still squash the other Prop. if they both passed, but it got more votes.
Oh, Hawaii might pass it next year.

[jimrtex]

It hasn't gotten to the signature phase yet, but there is a Prop. in the works called "The National Popular Vote for President Act" that is the interstate compact that Arnold vetoed. In addition, it would supercede any Props that effect electoral vote that passed in the same election but got fewer votes.

They might not be able to get the signature in time to make the June primary.  It doesn't appear that it can even start collecting signatures until October, and it suggested that they be turned in by November in order to get counted in time.

There is yet another initiative that would implement a Maine-Nebraska system.  This one though has a provision that it would not go into effect until a majority of the states had implemented some sort of proportional system.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It hasn't gotten to the signature phase yet, but there is a Prop. in the works called "The National Popular Vote for President Act" that is the interstate compact that Arnold vetoed. In addition, it would supercede any Props that effect electoral vote that passed in the same election but got fewer votes.

They might not be able to get the signature in time to make the June primary.  It doesn't appear that it can even start collecting signatures until October, and it suggested that they be turned in by November in order to get counted in time.

There is yet another initiative that would implement a Maine-Nebraska system.  This one though has a provision that it would not go into effect until a majority of the states had implemented some sort of proportional system.

It's the June primary, not the February primary.

[Torie]

The US Constitution requires state legislatures to allocate delegates. Thus this initiative if passed is Unconsitutional IMO, and will be struck down. Pity. Granted it won't pass anyway.

[jimrtex]

It hasn't gotten to the signature phase yet, but there is a Prop. in the works called "The National Popular Vote for President Act" that is the interstate compact that Arnold vetoed. In addition, it would supercede any Props that effect electoral vote that passed in the same election but got fewer votes.

They might not be able to get the signature in time to make the June primary.  It doesn't appear that it can even start collecting signatures until October, and it suggested that they be turned in by November in order to get counted in time.

There is yet another initiative that would implement a Maine-Nebraska system.  This one though has a provision that it would not go into effect until a majority of the states had implemented some sort of proportional system.

It's the June primary, not the February primary.

To be on the June ballot, the petitions have to be filed by Nov 13, 2007.  If a full signature count is required, the filing date is September 21, 2007.

An initiative has to be qualified 131 days before an election (January 24, 2008 for the June 3rd primary).   The deadline for filing is calculated backwards from then, including time for a raw count of signatures to be made, and then a random sample of signatures to be verified.  The actual verification is done by the counties, but the Secretary of State coordinates the process, so there are several sequential time periods.  If the random sample determines that a complete count is required, then the filing deadline is pushed back even further.  Actually what would happen is that that if some one filed after September 21, and it was eventually determined that a full check was required, and the full check was successful, then the initiative election would be in November.

The presidential vote initiative won't be cleared by the Attorney General before October 11.  Collecting the signatures in a month will be a challenge.  440,000 are required.  But the random sample has to indicate 110% or close to 500,000.   And there will be bunches of signature that the random sample will kick out, so you need to collect a few 100,000 more.

[jimrtex]

The US Constitution requires state legislatures to allocate delegates. Thus this initiative if passed is Unconsitutional IMO, and will be struck down. Pity. Granted it won't pass anyway.

The US Constitution doesn't say how the state legislature allocates delegates.  Traditionally, the state legislatures have appointed the electors themselves (last done in 1876), or let the voters of the state to determine the electors by popular vote.

There is nothing that prevents a state from appointing its electors on the basis of the popular votes in other states, or a collection of states, including itself.

[jimrtex]

It hasn't gotten to the signature phase yet, but there is a Prop. in the works called "The National Popular Vote for President Act" that is the interstate compact that Arnold vetoed. In addition, it would supercede any Props that effect electoral vote that passed in the same election but got fewer votes.

Let's say it gets on the ballot.  The NO advocates run ads that state:

"In 2004, 5.5 Million Californians voted for George W Bush [show crowd of very white fat scowling rednecks, with signs saying "4 More Years", "Go Home", etc.].   Over 6.7 Million Californians voted for John Kerry [show very cosmopolitan smiling crowd, soccer moms, Asians, Hispanics, etc.], more than the 1.2 million more than Bush [show more people walking up to join the Kerry crowd, greeting, as the Bush crowd shrinks into the background].  Because of this victory, 55 of your fellow citizens cast our State's electoral votes for John Kerry [show 55 "electors" advancing from cheering crowd, then go to shot of Dick Cheney announcing that California has voted for Kerry.]"

"But if Proposition 43 passes, people in other States will dictate who Californians vote for (show Texan in cowboy hat whispering in Cheney's ear, and Cheney announcing a correction, that California has voted for Bush.   Kerry crowd show shock and dismay and bewildermint, as Bush crowd laughs and mockingly points at Kerry crowd.)"

"Don't let Texas and other states tell Californians who they must vote for, vote NO on Proposition 43 (fade to picture of California flag flying in the breeze)."

[poughies]

it ain't going to pass. In other news, California is a lovely state.

[MODU]

The one aspect which I would love to come from this is a third-party ending up with a few EVs because they are strong in a few districts.  That would really screw with the two dinosaur parties.  Heck, it could be the break third-party candidates would need to break onto the national scene as a real force.

I pray to God this does'nt happen.  If it does we Democrats will be shut out of elections for good.

Why?  Clinton wouldn't have needed all of California's EVs in either election, and Carter didn't carry California at all and still won. 

The US Constitution requires state legislatures to allocate delegates. Thus this initiative if passed is Unconsitutional IMO, and will be struck down. Pity. Granted it won't pass anyway.

What the hell are you talking about?  I guess Maine and Nebraska are unconstitutionally allocating their votes then, huh?  Please, go back and read.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It hasn't gotten to the signature phase yet, but there is a Prop. in the works called "The National Popular Vote for President Act" that is the interstate compact that Arnold vetoed. In addition, it would supercede any Props that effect electoral vote that passed in the same election but got fewer votes.

They might not be able to get the signature in time to make the June primary.  It doesn't appear that it can even start collecting signatures until October, and it suggested that they be turned in by November in order to get counted in time.

There is yet another initiative that would implement a Maine-Nebraska system.  This one though has a provision that it would not go into effect until a majority of the states had implemented some sort of proportional system.

It's the June primary, not the February primary.

To be on the June ballot, the petitions have to be filed by Nov 13, 2007.  If a full signature count is required, the filing date is September 21, 2007.

An initiative has to be qualified 131 days before an election (January 24, 2008 for the June 3rd primary).   The deadline for filing is calculated backwards from then, including time for a raw count of signatures to be made, and then a random sample of signatures to be verified.  The actual verification is done by the counties, but the Secretary of State coordinates the process, so there are several sequential time periods.  If the random sample determines that a complete count is required, then the filing deadline is pushed back even further.  Actually what would happen is that that if some one filed after September 21, and it was eventually determined that a full check was required, and the full check was successful, then the initiative election would be in November.

The presidential vote initiative won't be cleared by the Attorney General before October 11.  Collecting the signatures in a month will be a challenge.  440,000 are required.  But the random sample has to indicate 110% or close to 500,000.   And there will be bunches of signature that the random sample will kick out, so you need to collect a few 100,000 more.

You're right that it's kind of tight. Maybe they're just aiming for the November 2008 general election, where they could repeal the previous Proposition if it passed.

[muon2]

The one aspect which I would love to come from this is a third-party ending up with a few EVs because they are strong in a few districts.  That would really screw with the two dinosaur parties.  Heck, it could be the break third-party candidates would need to break onto the national scene as a real force.

I pray to God this does'nt happen.  If it does we Democrats will be shut out of elections for good.

Why?  Clinton wouldn't have needed all of California's EVs in either election, and Carter didn't carry California at all and still won. 

It's easy to forget how unusual the last two elections were. In the last 100 years only 4 elections had a winner with fewer than 300 EV. Wilson 1916 (277-254), Carter 1976 (297-240-1), and the two for GW Bush (271-266-1, 286-251-1). In the large swing of Congressional seats in 2006 I see a return to a pattern that will produce more states shifting than between the last two elections. Without Bush on the ballot new patterns of voting will emerge as they have so commonly in the past. I suspect the winner in 2008 is more likely to have over 330 EV than under 300 EV.