GOP electoral scheme dies in California

February 7, 2008

For a while, the Republican electoral-vote scheme in California seemed like a fairly serious effort, and certainly something to keep an eye on. Fortunately, at least for now, it’s dead.

If you’re just joining us, it was quite a clever little scam: the state GOP, far-right activists, and Swiftboat financiers, under the guise of “fairness,” wanted to split California’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district, as opposed to the current winner-take-all system. There’s no real mystery behind the effort — the goal is to deny Dems about 20 fairly reliable electoral votes, making it difficult for the party to win a presidential election.

As of last fall, the initiative was in deep trouble. Its two key organizers had quit; the campaign was out of money; and proponents were nowhere near close to collecting the necessary number of signatures to get the scheme on the state ballot.

But before we could move on to other matter, some members of Rudy Giuliani’s team intervened, relaunched the effort, and eyed the November ballot.

I’m pleased to note that the whole effort, sometimes called “California Counts,” was a flop.

Proponents of a controversial proposed ballot measure that would have reallocated California’s electoral college votes by congressional district — instead of the current winner-take-all system — have abandoned their effort.

“It’s not going to make the ballot this year,” said David Gilliard, a Republican political strategist organizing the campaign. “The money never materialized to put it on the ballot.”

I’m tempted to say, “Nice try,” but the truth is, the whole effort was too stupid for praise.

Organizers needed more than 400,000 valid signatures by Feb. 4. That didn’t happen, though we do not yet know how far short they came.

So, it’s finished? For now, yes, but it may yet raise its ugly head again.

“I think in a year in which the presidential race is not going on, it may be easier to get the donors interested in it,” said Gilliard, whose campaign raised almost $1.4 million in 2007.

Gilliard said there were no plans to submit another measure in the future, though he did not rule out the possibility.

Given the extent to which this would hurt Democratic presidential hopes, and excitement (albeit brief) the idea generated in Republican circles last year, I’d be surprised if it didn’t make a comeback at some point soon.

I live in California and I’m proud to say that on two different occassions I successfully intervened outside my local grocery store and persuaded people not to sign the damn thing. The signature gatherers were selling it as some kind of “fariness for rural counties” thing. When people understood that the GOP was behind it, and specifically a presidential candidate’s money, it was an easy sell to get them to back off.

  • I know the idea was meant as a plot to make Republican’ts more electable.

    But really, getting closer to one man / one vote is bad because?

    Frankly, I’d like this to be the rule everywhere, and not just in Maine and Nebraska (if I remember correctly).

    There are times when it helps to remember principle, even if you can’t apply it right away.

  • Given the extent to which this would hurt Democratic presidential hopes, and excitement (albeit brief) the idea generated in Republican circles last year, I’d be surprised if it didn’t make a comeback at some point soon.

    Could we do this in some large reliably GOP states, like Florida, Texas, and Indiana? If not, can CA Dems put together an alternate prop that says CA will go to porportional allocations when 2/3rds of the other states do (or something like that)?

    I hate the idea that all we can do is play defense when it comes to this. What are some options?

  • “I think in a year in which the presidential race is not going on, it may be easier to get the donors interested in it,” said Gilliard, whose campaign raised almost $1.4 million in 2007.

    By contrast, the DCCC has a huge money advantage over Republicans, and is having trouble figuring out how to spend is since there are so many new openings. Then there are the donations to Clinton, Obama, and Paul, while all Rep presidential candidates had trouble raising donations.

    Does it seem like the wealthy are zipping up their wallets, while the poorest are throwing their last dime in the wishing well?

  • I agree with Lance that on principle, this is a good idea – certainly better than the current electoral college system. But it needs to be implemented nationwide to be really “fair.”

  • This would appear to be a delightful side effect of RooDee’s implosion.

    And I’m not sure that it would really be a move closer to one person, one vote. In numerous primaries and caucuses so far, Obama or Clinton has won the popular vote or the local delegate selections only to see the other candidate get as many or more national delegates because of the Congressional District-level apportionment. It would actually appear that CD level appoitionment is defeating one person-one vote in many of these instances, in the same way the Electoral College defeated one person-one vote in Bush/Gore.

  • That change in the rules makes sense only if that change in the rules applied to every state, not just California. Some people love to cheat and they underestimate the voters, especially California voters. An awful lot of us know how to read, and we also know how to add, subtract, multiply and divide.

  • Lance –


    I know the idea was meant as a plot to make Republican’ts more electable.

    But really, getting closer to one man / one vote is bad because?

    This is farther from one man, one vote than the current system. At least the winner-take-all assignment of electors to the electoral college gets around the stupid jerrymandering that states can do and forces the votes of the majority of the state’s population to be recognized. Even if state-level granularity is a stupid place to assign it, it’s something that politicians can’t touch to try to game the system. Move to a district level system and the impact of jerrymandering becomes much much more problematic.

    A better approach is to fund a drive to dump the electoral college and move to a popular vote. Notice that these funders have no interest in doing that because that would make the system more fair all around, and not just benefit one party or group of politicians over another.

  • I’m positive that no one who posts here is naive enough to believe that this initiative is going away. Drive inland from anywhere on the California coast and it gets ruby red real quick. The Repubs aren’t going to let this one die. It will be resurrected with a name like “The Fair Voting Fairness Act for Fairness in Voting.” As the Republicans become more marginalized they will fight like rabid wolverines for any advantage they can get.

    A real national debate on the utility of the Electoral College in the twenty-first century would be worth having. Piecemeal, state by state actions, are likely to make things worse.

  • Well, the Thugs had to try. After all, they did unseat Grey Davis & then they installed a Thug after pissing off the Cali residents by manipulating the electrical market. With Bush help, of course.
    But that’s just how it looked to me.

  • And while I was posting Zeitgeist posted something that buttresses my argument:


    In numerous primaries and caucuses so far, Obama or Clinton has won the popular vote or the local delegate selections only to see the other candidate get as many or more national delegates because of the Congressional District-level apportionment. It would actually appear that CD level appoitionment is defeating one person-one vote in many of these instances, in the same way the Electoral College defeated one person-one vote in Bush/Gore.

    EXACTLY. Congressional districts can be easily manipulated to arbitrarily change support. You probably can’t reach a point where a majority Dem state is going to go 100% Republican (though I wouldn’t put it past politicians to figure out a way to do it), but you can reach a point where districts are drawn to marginalize the impact of voters and shave off representation that those voters should have.

    If you want one-man one-vote then fight for one-man one-vote. Don’t get duped by systems that rhetorically sound “more fair” – unless it actually is one-man one-vote it’s probably someone selling you something better for them and worse for you.

  • I’ll agree with everybody that trashing the Electoral College would be a good idea.

    Austrialian voting would be a good idea, or barring that having a run-off election.

    Until then, getting all the states to proportionally distribute their electors. Because Nony-Nony, I actually think that’s closer to one man one vote. And it would certainly make Gerrymandering a matter of more concern for everybody. And it would make candidates campaign in more states than Ohio and Florida. Right now the battlegrounds get all the attention.

    Of course in 2008 Virginia will be a battleground state (HUZAH!)

  • If the entire nation had been this way Gore would have won. Nuff Said.

    But doing it 1 state at a time will benefit one side depending on the state, see references to CA and TX in the comments.

    It would actually put power into the hands of small state voters. To a CA voter, the Senate Seats would not really mater as they would go by total state vote. But a voter in MT would have 3 votes! And urban Blue dots in red states would get the voice they should have and conversly, red rich or rural areas (thinking Morris County NJ here) would get the voice they should have as well.

  • Gerrymandering is of course designed to allow the party in charge of state government to stay in charge of state government. Texas is the perfect example of this but all states participate, regardless of which party is trying to dominate the state.

    I know that gerrymandering at time has a “good” impact – allowing minorities to have their own district. But it also has tons of negative impacts.

    After the primaries system in this country, gerrymandering is the next most irritating aspect of our “democracy.”

  • I will be refilling the Electoral Reform Initiative very soon. I filed the original on May 10, 2007 and was co-opted by the big boys. I expected that with their resources that this issue would be effecting the 2008 election. I was wrong.
    They failed miserably. So get ready for round two.
    “The Electoral Reform Initiative is a really good idea”.
    When the Electoral Reform Initiative passes in 2010 California political parties will be motivated. ElectoralReformCalifornia.com is the website.
    What is important is EVERYONE’S vote will matter and everyone will know it.
    California’s electoral votes will no longer ALL be controlled by the big city political machines (LA/SF) and the major market conservative/liberal media.
    California will become competitive in the presidential campaign.
    Presidential candidates will have to campaign for your vote – in suburbs, small towns and rural areas, just like they are doing now.
    Today the California Political System is Broken!
    Right now a presidential candidate who wins in Los Angeles County gets all 53 state wide electoral votes. This is not democratic and is not fair.
    In 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 national candidates
    did not campaign in California. They ignored us.
    Yet California has 10% of the nation’s electors.
    The candidates act like hoodlums. They take our money and disappear.
    Today, voter apathy is prevalent. People don’t care.
    Why? Because California voters do not believe their vote counts.
    In 1920 women finally won the right to vote.
    In 1965 the Voting Rights Act helped to reduce obstacles preventing minorities from exercising their right to vote.
    In the future we also want our vote to count.
    In 2004 5.5 million votes were wasted.
    How will the initiative affect California?
    The entire voice of California will be heard from the suburbs to small towns and rural areas – not just the voice emanating from the Los Angeles area.
    California will be alive again. It is time for Change and Reform.

  • Yo, Tony, baby, idjit, come out with a plan than proportions the delegates to the total state vote, and only starts doing so when 2/3rds of the states (by population!) also have similar laws.

    …And I bet everyone here would vote for it.

    Make it fair: By total in state, not district – which changes and isn’t equal to population. And make it not start until a majority of the US population is similarly protected, so that it stays fair.

    (Also, could you work up a method by which we vote for Senators by party instead of State? That’d be awesome.)

  • I thought this idea wasn’t wholy bad until I realized the consequences and impact of gerrymandering congressional districts. I am not a Californian, but if this were the case in my state, I would not want to give gerrymandering any more power than it already has. I would only consider this if a state would use one of the ‘fair’ algorithms to automatically generate districts. That said, I think that it would be a good idea for a state to split electoral votes by the percentages of the popular vote.

    All of this is just a mental exercise for non-Californians though because this is a state issue, not a federal one. I am sick of outsiders trying to tell a state that they can’t do something different unless 2/3 of the other states choose to as well (especially the absurd notion of 2/3 by population!). The rights of the States are important.

    All in all, I wish South Carolina would adopt the split system. I always feel like a vote for anything non-Republician is a wasted one here!

    • Comments are closed.