I think most people would agree that there's almost no chance that a Republican candidate would carry the popular vote of California in the 2008 general election for president. This is important for Democrats, because the winner of the statewide popular vote there gets all of the state's 55 electoral votes.
In 2004, President Bush lost the popular vote in California by double digits. That doesn't bode well for the Republicans since they are even less popular this year than in 2004. In fact, Democrats have won California's electoral vote in the last four elections.
Knowing they have little chance to get all of California's electoral votes, some Republicans have come up with a plan that could let them steal nearly half of those votes. They are trying to get a proposal on the ballot that would award only two electoral votes to the statewide winner -- the other 53 votes would be given to the winner in each of the 53 congressional districts.
This is not as crazy as it initially sounds. There are two other states that award their electoral votes in this manner -- Maine and Nebraska. Even worse for Democrats, 19 of these districts are represented by Republicans and in 2004 Bush won in 22 of these districts.
If they could get the proposal approved, they could walk away with around 20 of California's electoral votes. That could be disastrous for Democrats in a close election. The Democrats need all of California's votes to offset the Deep South, which will probably remain true to the Republicans.
The proposition probably wouldn't pass, but who can tell? After all, this is the state that voted for the "Terminator". At the very least, if they are able to get it on the ballot, the Democrats would have to divert a lot of campaign money to fight it.
This throws a new wrinkle in what already promised to be a very interesting presidential race next year.
The Republicans will do what ever it takes to try to remain in power. There will be many more attempts made to alter the outcome of the elections in 2008. Heck, they figured they got away with it in 2000, they can get away with it now.
ReplyDeleteI might go along with this idea if it was done in ALL states. But they don't want that. They only want to break up the big Democratic states.
ReplyDelete"The U.S. Constitution prohibits a ballot measure that would trump a state legislature's chosen method of appointing electors. In Article II, Section 1, the Constitution declares that electors shall be appointed by states 'in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.' That's legislature. California's could scrap its current winner-take-all approach and adopt a district-by-district system for allocating electors (as only Maine and Nebraska currently do). But the voters—whom the initiative supporters have turned to because they don't have the support of the Democratic-controlled legislature—cannot do this on their own." From SLATE By Doug Kendall Posted Thursday, Sept. 13, 2007
ReplyDelete