September 8, 2007 7:18 PM
Electoral College Reform
Currently, two States, Nebraska (5 electoral votes) and Maine (4 electoral votes), allocate their electoral votes by Congressional districts. In all other States electoral votes are allocated on a Statewide, winner-take-all basis.Earlier this year Democrats in North Carolina proposed allocating that State's 14 electoral votes on a Congressional District basis. The goal was to pick up 4 electoral votes for Democratic Presidential candidates in a State that regularly delivers its electoral votes to the Republican candidate. North Carolina Democrats were talked out of going forward with their plan.
And then comes California. An initiative has been filed, by a Republican lawyer, that would allocate the State's 55 electoral votes on the basis of Congressional Districts won, with the Statewide plurality or majority winner getting the extra 2 electoral votes.
An effort is being made to get the proposition on the June 3, 2008, State primary ballot. If it succeeds, California's electoral votes would be allocated on a Congressional District basis in 2008.
The first step for the proponents is to acquire the 433,971 signatures required to get the proposition on the ballot. If that effort is successful...standback! Millions of dollars will flow into that contest, and there are no limits as to amounts or sources.
To add to the drama, with the Presidential primary scheduled for February 5th, this will be the 2nd Statewide election in California in a 4-month period. Turnout will likely be affected. If this had been the rule in 2000, George Bush would have received at least 19 additional votes, bringing his total electoral votes from 271 to 290. Al Gore's total would have fallen from 266 to 247.
In 2004, Bush would have picked up an additional 22 electoral votes, raising his total votes from 286 to 308 and lowering John Kerry's total from 251 to 229.
A recent Field poll (+/-4.5%) asked if respondents favor allocating the States' electoral votes on the current winner- take-all basis or on a District-by-District basis. District-bDistrict won 47%-35%. Democrats split dead even on the issue,
41%-42%. Republicans supported change by 29 points, as did Independents by 9 points.
Respondents were then told that if this method had been in place in the past 4 Presidential elections, Republicans would have received as many as 22 additional electoral votes.
Democrats were then less inclined to support the change, by 43% - 27%. Republicans were more inclined to support the change 61%- 14%, and Independents were less inclined to support change by 9 points.
Respondent preferences from both questions were then combined, with the result that change to the District-by-District method still won 49%-42%. Democrats clearly opposed change, 53%- 41%, as did Independents by 51%-37%. Repsupported the change, 70%-24%.
While on the subject of electoral votes, here is what is likely to happen, in terms of House seats, after the 2010 census. 8 states will gain seats - Texas +4; Arizona and Florida +2 each; Georgia, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington +1 each. 11 states will lose seats - New York and Ohio -2 each; Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania -1 each.
States won by Bush in 2004 will pick up 11 seats and lose 5 seats. States won by Kerry in 2004 will lose 8 seats and pick up 2 seats. This would have resulted in Bush winning in 2004 by 292 electoral votes to 245 electoral votes.
[For those of you whose instinct is to let me know that total electoral votes in each year only add up to 537, remember there was one faithless Democratic elector in each election.]
