Sacramento-based ballot initiative activist Ted Costa filed the language for an Electoral College Reform Act with the Attorney General of California‘s office on December 7, 2010, where it is pending a ballot title and summary. The initiative may ultimately qualify for the state’s 2012 ballot as an initiated state statute. [1]
If the Electoral College Reform Act qualifies for the ballot and is approved by the state’s voters, it will change the way California allocates its presidential Electoral College votes. Currently, the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all 55 of California’s electoral college votes. The winner-take-all system would be replaced with one that awards 53 of the state’s 55 electoral votes individually to whichever presidential candidate gets the most votes in each congressional district.
An initiative with the same objective, the California Presidential Electoral College Reform Initiative, was proposed, but ultimately did not qualify for, the state’s June 2008 ballot.
According to political analyst Dan Morain, “On its face, the populist proposal would play to voters’ sense of fairness and desire for competition among candidates. In reality, this initiative would be a Republican power grab with national implications. The change contemplated by Costa and other consultants could push a Republican to victory in a close presidential race.” [1]
California has 53 U.S. Congressional districts. 33 are held by the Democratic Party and 20 by the Republican Party, as of the November 2, 2010 elections. The state gets 55 votes in the electoral college, 53 for each congressional seat and 2 for its 2 U.S. Senate seats.
If the Electoral College Reform Act is passed, and if voters in the state’s congressional districts cast votes for U.S. President in alignment with their votes for U.S. Congress, then instead of yielding 55 electoral college votes to the country’s Democratic candidate for U.S. President, the state could yield nearly two dozen votes for the country’s Republican nominee.
Because of the national implications, a coalition of Democratic power-players including Thomas Steyer and Stephen Bing and led by Chris Lehane organized a group, Californians for Fair Election Reform, to oppose the 2008 effort.
Dividing a state’s electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person’s vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws(whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR (6), CT (7), DE (3), DC (3), ME (4), MI (17), NV (5), NM (5), NY (31), NC (15), and OR (7), and both houses in CA (55), CO (9), HI (4), IL (21), NJ (15), MD (10), MA(12), RI (4), VT (3), and WA (11). The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Why the Reform of Electoral College is a really good idea!
George Washington was elected by Concressional Districts.
Returns the power of the vote back to the local people.
It reinforces our founding fathers concept of representative government.
Presidential candidates will no longer ignore California.
California will become a competitive market in the Presidential race forcing candidates to campaign in this great state
$100,000,000 will be spent in California in newspaper, TV, and Radio purchases.
It will create many jobs
Grass roots political issues (energy/environment) will be discussed in the election.
Independents and third party votes will matter.
Local and Rural voters will have a voice.
5,500,000 votes will not be wasted.
California will reflect its political demography.
It enhances the importance of swing voters and competitive districts.
It is the fairest system possible.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
The reasoning of the Founding Fathers appears to have gone something like this: The average citizen would know members of his own community best. Thus, the idea in the Constitution for the individuals in each state to vote for an “elector” from their area to represent them in the state’s council of electors. These state electors were delegated the responsibility of voting for that individual they considered best qualified for the highest office in the land.
While desirous of having the individual citizens of each state participate in the procedure, they did not think the election of the president should be a national event! Rather, it should be the result of the careful deliberations of a select group of individuals in each state (called electors) chosen according to the procedure established by the state’s legislature.
The idea of a national election where everybody voted for an individual was not acceptable since this would encourage the worst possible outcome of a democratic approach. The individual with the most charisma and best rhetoric could win under such a procedure, irrespective of qualifications.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 30 ballots for choosing a method): “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .”
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The congressional-district district approach fails when evaluated against the criteria of whether it would make presidential elections more competitive, whether it would accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote, and whether it would make every vote equal. In short, allocating electoral votes by congressional district would make a bad system even worse.
As to competitiveness, in the 2000 presidential election, there were only 55 congressional districts (out of 435 districts) in which the difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore was 4% or less in the district (the measure for not being safely ahead or hopelessly behind). Similarly, in 2004, there were only 42 congressional districts nationwide in which the difference between George W. Bush and John Kerry was 4% or less in the district. That is, only about a tenth of the population of the country lives in a congressional district that is closely divided in presidential elections. In contrast, at least/at most, about a third of the country’s population currently lives in a state that is competitive in presidential elections. One reason why the congressional-district approach is so much less competitive than the existing statewide winner-take-all approach is that congressional districts are often gerrymandered in favor of one party or the other in many states. This gerrymandering is sometimes done to give one party an unfair political advantage, and it is sometimes done as part of a bipartisan agreement to assure safe seats to incumbents of both parties. If electoral votes were allocated by congressional district, state legislatures would have even greater incentives to gerrymander districts than they now do.
As to accurately reflecting the nationwide popular vote, a second-place candidate could easily win the Presidency under the congressional-district approach. If the congressional-district approach had been applied to the results of the closest of the nation’s most recent presidential elections (2000), then Bush would have received 288 electoral votes (53.3% of the total number of electoral votes), and Gore would have received 250 electoral votes (46.5% of the total). That is, the congressional-district approach would have given Bush a 6.8% lead in electoral votes over Gore in 2000. Under the existing system, Bush received 271 electoral votes in 2000 (50.4% of the total number of electoral votes)—a 0.8% lead in electoral votes over Gore. Not only would the congressional district approach have greatly magnified Bush’s lead in electoral votes, Gore received 50,992,335 popular votes (50.2% of the two-party popular vote) nationwide compared to Bush’s 50,455,156 vote. In summary, the congressional-district approach would have been even less accurate than the existing statewide winner-take-all system in terms of reflecting the nationwide will of the voters.
In the 2004 presidential election, George W. Bush carried 255 (59%) of the 435 congressional districts, whereas John Kerry carried 180. Bush also carried 31 (61%) of the 51 jurisdictions (the 50 states plus the District of Columbia) entitled to appoint presidential electors. If the congressional-district approach had been used nationwide for the 2004 presidential election, Bush would have won 317 (59%) of the 538 electoral votes in an election in which he received 51.5% of the two-party nationwide popular vote.
There is a wide disparity in the number of votes cast in various congressional districts for a variety of reasons. Inside many states, there is a three-to-one disparity in the number of votes cast in particular districts (due to factors including population changes since the last federal census and the level of turnout). There are also significant differences between states. Wyoming (with a population of 453,588 in 1990) and Montana (with a population of 799,065 in 1990) each had one member in the House of Representatives (and hence three electoral votes). Under the district system, a vote in Montana would be worth less than a vote in Wyoming.
In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. The voters and their concerns in the 50 non-competitive districts would still be ignored.
Serious presidential candidates solicit every voter that matters.
Nebraska and Maine are the two states that award electoral votes by congressional district. In 2008 both parties paid attention to the 2nd district of Nebraska because it was a closely divided battleground district where one electoral vote was at stake. The Obama and McCain presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska’s reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) two-thirds of the state were irrelevant. Similarly, because Maine also uses the congressional district system, its closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine’s 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
When votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously solicit those areas for votes. When votes don’t matter, they ignore those areas.
The “folly” of individual states adopting the congressional-district approach on a piecemeal basis is shown by the fact that there were only 55 congressional districts in which the difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore was 4% or less in the 2000 presidential election (the measure of battleground status).
If states were to start adopting the congressional-district approach on a piecemeal basis, each state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining winner-take-all states and thereby decrease the chance that the remaining states would adopt that approach. A state-by-state process of adopting the congressional-district approach would bring itself to a halt.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning districts. No more distorting and divisive red and blue maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing districts.