Field Poll shows Californians lean toward dividing electoral votes

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE (8-21-07)

California voters are inclined to support a proposed ballot initiative that would change how the Golden State allocates its electoral votes in presidential campaigns, but they're not yet sold on the idea, a Field Poll released today showed.

(SNIP)

Under the proposed measure, which could be on the June 2008 ballot, the presidential election would become, in essence, a congressional district-by-congressional district contest. The winner of the statewide popular vote would receive two electoral votes, but the remaining votes would go to the winner in each of the 53 congressional districts.

(SNIP)

The Field Poll found that 47 percent of registered voters back a change to California's system for electoral votes, with 35 percent opposed. Republicans generally support the change more than Democrats.

When pollsters explained the political implication that Democratic presidential candidates might lose some electoral votes under a proportional system, the numbers changed: 49 percent supported the change and 42 percent opposed it. Opposition from Democrats and independent voters rose when the issue was put this way.

more: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/21/BAD7RM3GH.DTL

The California-based Field Poll is a nonpartisan, media-sponsored poll of California public opinion.

The ballot initiative was filed by Thomas Hiltachk, managing partner at the California Republican Party's primary law firm, Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk.

Weird.

They don't like the fact that their votes often go unheard because Democrats have a lock on the EC vote.

There's little point in campaigning in CA if the EC votes are split. A candidate's time will be better spent in places where large numbers of EC votes are in play.

CA is simply going to make itself a non-player in Presidential elections.

A candidate's time will be better spent in places where large numbers of EC votes are in play.

Other than a blatant GOP power grab, I think one of the points of the initiatives' proponents is that California really isn't in play now because it's a shoo-in for the Democratic candidate.

:shrug:

But in 20 years, during a close election in which something near and dear to the hearts of Californians is a major issue, I guarantee that the enormity of the blunder of splitting EC votes would come home to CA.

But if Californians want a slew of Republican Presidents, I guess this is the way to do it.

splitting their electoral votes???????.....Unless you reform all the states together, this California initiative must not pass....It would be a gift of 20+ electoral votes to a Republican, who will almost certainly lose California in 2008....And I think we all could agree that there is no chance that EVERY state would change the way they divy up their EV by election day 2008...

Besides, with all the gerrymandering that exists, it could only work if it you award EV by percentage won....For example, if a candiate wins a state by 20% or more, you get all the electoral votes for that state....If a candiate wins by 1%, then he gets 55% of the states electoral votes, etc(something like that)...If you're going to split electoral votes, the only workable way is probably to award based on the % won in the state.....

But this proposal in California (by a Republican) is nothing but election rigging....


:popcorn:

We need to get the word out on this.

Only one Republican I've communicated with opposes this intitative. I found his reasoning interesting:

He's afraid that Democrats in other states that presently give all their EC votes to the GOP will respond in kind.

opinion when told of the consequence.

It's a sneaky initiative because it sounds fair. Getting the word out is exactly right!

Tell them that an initiative makes things "more fair", and they'll support it every time (if that's all the information they have).

And Californians did elect Schwarzenegger twice.

It would affect the entire country, not just California.

Although it comes into play only rarely, when it does it creates much rancor that I could do without.

It's one thing to agree to do it, if all 50 states also agree.

Unilaterally changing this would make getting the white house that much easier for republicans.

Please pass the word on to people who aren't paying attention as closely as you are.

Dumbfuckistan's flag flies high.

Or is California becoming conservative?

Most of the state is rural, and much of it is heavily Republican. We have a lot of big agriculture here, and an unequalled military presence.

Democratic control is concentrated very heavily in areas that happen to be highly populated - San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles metropolitan areas.

Democrats account for only about 42% of registered voters. Check out the registration statistics:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_u.htm

These terms are relative, and a lot of us have a hard time understanding other peoples' point of view.

18% are Decline to state or "independent" voters.

That's why this thing is so dangerous to the status quo of Democratic domination, at least in the short run.

42% + 18% = 60%
But you know that the independent vote is not so easily awarded.

:shrug:

This Repuke power grab is dangerous no matter how we add up the numbers.

and pass it on to others, especially in California. It's by Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker a few weeks ago.

It's brief, but here are a few snippets:


.





http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/08/06/070806taco_talk_hertzberg

resources it's going to require to defeat it -- resources that could be used in many more constructive ways in a presidential election year,

These MFs think of everything.

The direct initiative process is a sham. More bad things get through than good, and money is what talks.

This initiative is particularly scuzzy--since no one will come to the polls in June; it's misleadingly labeled (what else is new: most initiatives are), and is being run out of Schwarzenegger's (Republican) attorney's office.

Obviously a Republican lawyer filed it. I haven't seen any proof of a direct connection between him and Governator. That information would be very useful if it can be verified.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bell%2C_McAndrews_%26_Hiltachk%2C_LLP

BM&H LLC has also "fronted" for:

Californians for Schwarzenegger, "a committee formed to promote the election of Governor Schwarzenegger during the recall election of 2003."

Thanks.

it drowns out minority voices, and in fact makes them totally invisible.

Most Democrats in California are perfectly happy to drown out all those Republican, independent, and minor party voices. But Democrats are not the majority here.

Which is the highest percentage of registered voters in California.

The reason Democrats have been able to maintain control is that many of the independents often side with us.

As per the article I posted above--the Congressional districts are totally gerrymandered anyway. If you live in Orange County and vote for a Democrat for president, your voice still won't be heard.

In the short term, in the meantime, twenty electoral votes to the Republicans in CA could swing the entire national election. A Democrat could win the popular vote by a landslide and still lose.

As Herzberg says, it's a Tom Delay wet dream.

However, this is being done specifically because California changed from being a dependable Republican state in Presidential elections to a fairly dependable Democratic state in Presidential elections.

In short this is an effort to change the rules to increase the possibility of Republican Presidents and decrease the possibility of Democratic Presidents. The motive is not some political science effort at perfecting democracy. It is a cynical ploy to elect more Republican Presidents and fewer Democratic Presidents.

For example, New West Amsterdam goes 51% Democratic, 49% Republican, so today all 10 votes go to the Democrat. It sounds fairer to redivide the electoral votes so 5 votes go to the Democrat, 5 to the Republican. But under this proposal, New West Amsterdam divides its 10 votes according to its Congressional districts, which are incredibly gerrymandered. Now, 1 vote goes to the Democrat and 9 to the Republican.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

that can sound good -- until you think about the consequences.

And the consequences of this would currently, generally trend (but not necessarily; previously California has gone republican) to taking electoral votes from Democrats -- and giving these to republicans.

In short, it's a bad idea -- unless you favor shifting advantage to the republicans.

Better to move to presidential election by popular vote, which reflects the general practice in other elections.

for decades if this happens.

:crazy:

...by educating everyone you know. It GIVES AWAY...to the Republican party... half of California's 55 electoral college electors. That's like giving away Ohio or Florida. And they're calling it 'Election Reform Initiative' to confuse people on purpose. It won't fix our election process...it'll just help Democrats to lose another Presidential election.

Absolutely.