The Reason Why The Republicans Could Win the 2008 Election

Everyone hates the Electoral College. Everyone. It's a ridiculous system and I think we can all agree on that. What's more, everyone loves the abstract idea of "voter fairness". But what happens when people who don't give a fuck about either concept use the two to dupe a state into rigging a presidential election?

The "California Presidential Electors Inititiative" happens. Get used to hearing more about this, folks. It could be the only thing that keeps the GOP in the White House.

Democrats are understandably freaking out. As this proposed state ballot initiative has pretty clear national implications, they've already called in all the big boys.

Here's the thing that concerns me the most about this nonsense:

Let's put aside the clear irony of a Republican hatchet organization saying that something is "not about Democrats or Republican" and actually look at things practically. The idea in the abstract isn't necessarily a bad one. Sure, awarding a vote based on winning your congressional district is just as arbitrary on some level as awarding a vote based on winning your state, but one could argue that it's a lot closer to equal representation than the winner-take-all system. A lot of people, who don't take the time to think about the practical consequences of their actions, will vote for this initiative for that reason.

The problem, of course, is that by doing it state-by-state in a state as large as California, you drastically tilt the balance and distort the fairness of the process. Let's say the Democrat and the Republican candidates both gain the same share in California as they did in 2004. Dems get 33 votes and Republicans get 22. Now, even if the Dems win Ohio by a landslide and the popular vote overall, they still lack the votes to gain the presidency.

These kinds of hypotheticals should be patently obvious to anyone paying attention. But many people are so wrapped up in the supposed injustices of the political system that they are more than willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. That's not to say that change isn't warranted, but to wrap up pure political hackery in the guise of electoral change is both despicable and frightening as fucking hell.

However if it causes a nation wide change it will ultimately be for the better. At least in theory politicians would then have to sell themselves to a more national audience as opposed to selling themselves to select groups.

That's a huge fucking "if." The Electoral College has no continued rationale for its existence, in my own opinion, but dismantling it piecemeal will only render the system more unfair - especially since this reform in particular will only further dilute the electoral weight of large urban states vis-a-vis small rural ones.

Right. All or nothing. And this can't happen now. This shit needs to get figured out NOT for this cycle, but for the next, if it's going to be changed at all. None of this cheap "one state that helps us" crap.

Well it only really works correctly if every state does it but I am not inherently opposed to the idea. Like for example in Texas the democrats would likely gain electoral votes in places like Austin and Houston. It would also likely allow 3rd party candidates to finally get electoral votes. But just doing it in California is a recipe for disaster.

I think we're pretty much all in agreement on that. Except perhaps for alpha22.

I rest my case.

I agree, if it's California only that switches it's a huge miscarriage of justice, however the electoral college needs changing and if this gets the ball rolling and gets the other states to switch systems then great. IMO one of the biggest reasons for low voter turnout is that people living in a state that traditionally swings the opposite way from their party of choice will simply not bother to vote, additionally knowing your state will already go one way or another keeps you from adding in your vote as you figure why bother it's already been won.

On the face of it, it's a sound idea, regardless of party outcome... I had a thought that it might be more palatable for everyone if a big Republican leaning state or two, like Texas, Florida or Virginia did the same thing.
Here in Maryland, we did something entirely different: Maryland's 10 electoral votes will go to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, regardless of the vote here. This is a very blue state, so I don't know how long this will last past the first time a Democrat wins the vote here but the votes go to the GOP nominee.

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at.

Well does the change have to happen in every state or could the Federal government make that change? I agree with you about the swing states. We should not only fix the electoral system but have a nation wide voting day. While we are at it lets fix the ballot access laws that unduly favor the two main parties.

Hear, hear! (Never thought I'd agree with someone using a hammer and sickle as an avatar! )
By nationwide voting day, do you mean having a 24 hour period that begins and ends at the same moment everywhere in the country? Because that's an excellent idea.

Thats even worse because you are totally ignoring the voters to which those electoral votes are supposed to represent. I thought I heard that California was trying to do this also.

IMO It would probably be better if it happened state wide rather than federally, however I am only saying this because I am assuming that whichever party was in power would be accused by the other of trying to fix or break the system in their favor, it would be alot harder to accuse all 50 states of doing the same.

Also Agreed about the multi party access, granted we will always be a two party system but it would be nice to see other parties be able to step up and one or both of the existing parties go bye bye.

I'll let you on a little secret. I am not actually a communist.

I don't think it has to be 24 hours although it could be. Even if it was like 9am-9pm in every time zone I think that would work well enough. I'm just sick of places like New Hampshire getting so much attention while other places with more people get nothing.

Unfortunately I believe it is impossible for the federal government to tell the states how to apportion their electoral votes. From the constitution:

I wonder though if states could pass some sort of contingent legislation - ie. pass a bill that essentially does dole out electoral votes based on districts rather than an all-or-nothing system, but only goes into effect when a requisite number of other states have passed a similar bill. That could make something like it work.

And Subrosa, unfortunately I have to disagree with you on what you said:

People like you and I living in California and New York hate it, because it negatively affects our impact on the presidential election. People living in underpopulated states like Alaska love it because it forces presidential candidates to address their concerns in an attempt to get electoral votes that are disproportionate to their population size. If it were strictly based on the popular vote (which is essentially what this proposal is doing, if not in name) then candidates would spend most of their time in New York, California, Texas and Florida - the most populated states. Right now all of those states but Florida are more or less ignored because they're taken for granted as voting in one particular direction.

I didn't think you were, hence the smiley.

No. That's contingent on many other states passing the same law. See here.

It's a great idea and I would vote for the same here in CA as well, but it's not in effect yet.

First off, there's already something in place to make sure the voices of people living in sparsely populated states get heard by the government. It's called The Senate.

Also, even if you assume it'd be a bad thing for Presidential candidates to appeal only to states with large voting populations, it's just as likely that if the EC were abolished that candidates would pay even less attention to particular states and instead focus more on issues.

I'm in total agreement with you - but asking states to give up what they rightly presume to be an advantageous position with respect to their influence in another branch of the federal government is almost certainly going to result in an unwanted backlash (picture the commercials: "New York City and Los Angeles liberals believe that their votes are more important than yours. They want you to do what they say when it comes time to elect a president. They'd like to change the way voting works so that your vote doesn't mean anything any more. As a proud citizen of Idaho, I think my voice should be heard, and that's why I'm voting against proposition 420 this fall. This has been a paid political advertisement from the Club for Growth."

Maybe. I'd be willing to take that chance. My whole point was that not everyone would be. The current system means that candidates for president have to actual have a position on the proposed Yuca mountain nuclear waste disposal facility, because it means something to Nevada voters. If elections really were about a national consensus then politicians wouldn't ever mention issues like that - and people in Nevada might not be happy as a result, hence their opposition to a change in the status quo.

I'm playing devil's advocate here - I absolutely detest the electoral college, but I think there are a lot of people who would stay in favor of it because it works to their advantage.

The entire basis for politics is that everyone is in favor of what would benefit them the most. Of course the democrats are against this right now (despite supporting abolishing the system after the 2000 elections when Gore won the popular vote), and the republicans are strongly for it (only in this particular case, because it works to their advantage.)

Ideally though, if I were to design a voting system, I would abolish the electoral college and adopt runoff voting to foster actual competition to the two main parties.

Oh, I agree. Because of farm subsidies alone there'd be a huge backlash against any attempt to abolish or probably even alter the EC on a nation-wide level.

I'm not opposed to changing state laws to favor proportional representation rather than "winner-takes-all", but as has been pointed out already, it has to be all 50 states or none for it to not be a partisan power grab.

Ah. I missed that part. Thanks!

Oh fuck it. Let's just go back to letting the bosses pick the candidates.

At least it would be honest.

Aren't there already some states that split electoral votes?