That was quick. An initiative effort by Republican operatives to change California’s electoral college vote in the presidential election is in a state of collapse. It had begun inauspiciously, with under 50% support in the Field Poll, the scorn of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and poor fundraising results.
The initiative drive, if one can call it that, which was first revealed in the Los Angeles Times in July, would have changed the electoral college vote of California — and nowhere else — from the customary winner-take-all to apportioning by winner of congressional district. This would likely give 20 or so additional electoral college votes to the Republican nominee, and probably the White House. Democrats call it an obvious power grab, and Schwarzenegger, as first revealed on NWN, doesn’t like the proposed measure one bit, likening it to a “loser’s mentality.”
Despite having Schwarzenegger’s former political lawyer, Tom Hiltachk, and his fundraising consultant, Marty Wilson, the effort had only raised about $200,000, most of it from a shadowy group seemingly based in Missouri that won’t say where the money came from. Hiltachk quit yesterday and Wilson had already scaled back his involvement.
Democrats reacted with alacrity when the effort emerged in July, bringing on PR consultant Chris Lehane, mobilizing the state and national party apparatuses behind chairmen Art Torres and Howard Dean, and rolling out U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to denounce it as a cynical attempt to steal the White House by changing the rules here and nowhere else.
Schwarzenegger, albeit more diplomatically as a Republican, said much the same thing, telling ABC correspondent Nanette Miranda in a TV interview early this month: “To me, what we have in place right now works. I feel like if you all of a sudden in the middle of the game start changing the rules it’s kind of odd, it almost feels like a loser’s mentality, saying I cannot win with those rules, so let me change the rules. I have not made up my mind yet in one way or the other, because I haven’t seen the details on it but basically I would say there is something off with this whole idea.”
A few days later, the governor went to the state Republican Party convention outside Palm Springs where he further challenged the party to find ways to appeal to the broad middle of the electorate.
Even if the measure is somehow revived, it has never had good prospects. As the Field Poll showed last month, it began with a support level under 50%. That is historically a death knell for a ballot measure. Especially so for one the public hasn’t heard much about.
To me, it has always seemed like an idea too clever by half. One that might force Democrats to spend money to defeat it, to be sure. But also one that would force Republicans to pony up the cash to make it viable. And Republican fundraising, as we’ve seen all year, is down. Their resources are better spent elsewhere.
Your posts are welcome in the Forum.
Read 
| Comments (45) |
Good work by California’s Democrats!
Good work by California’s Democrats!
No video?
What would you like? Video of white guys in suits plotting around a table?
That would be exciting. lol
And unconstitutional too. The initiative if passed would deprive the Legislature of the power to determine how electors are elected, which is expressly conferred on it by the US Constitution. (In a similar case years ago the USSC ruled against a state law that required a popular vote to approve a US constitutional amendment). I always thought this idea was a vehicle to raise money, and I am not surprised that its proponents quit when contributions failed to materialize.
Bill Bradley :
What would you like? Video of white guys in suits plotting around a table?
—
That would be a nice one to have. Perhaps they could be smoking cigars and drinking whiskey. That would be perfect!
By the by…it’s a most wonderful read. Yes, be spending more time with it today. As you noted, it’s longish…but it’s a very easy read.
A terrible idea meets its ignominious end. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
A terrible idea meets its ignominious end. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Easy to read,easy to understand and earns Arnold a little more trust isssue with me(just in case he runs for another office). Well done.
Sorry for the double-posting.
Yes I know Sacto, I am agreeing with you. I just read yours.
Carole W…
I agree with you about the issue. It was a bad idea from day one. However, my “easy to read” comment was about David Halbestam’s “The Coldest Winter”…
It just arrived yesterday and is like cutting through butter with a hot knife. In just the few pages I’ve read it’s hard not to believe that his final work will not be considered one of his finest works!
Sorry if my first post was unclear…gosh, just think, The Solon and unclear…who would ever believe it???
Why do Jonathan’s (welcome) initial posts double-post, but his apologies merely single-post?
Why do Jonathan’s (welcome) initial posts double-post, but his apologies merely single-post?
Unknown. Let’s see what he says.
Korea, a war that dragged on …
Glad to hear it’s such a good book.
>Sacramento Solon :
Carole W…
I agree with you about the issue. It was a bad idea from day one. However, my “easy to read” comment was about David Halbestam’s “The Coldest Winter”…
It just arrived yesterday and is like cutting through butter with a hot knife. In just the few pages I’ve read it’s hard not to believe that his final work will not be considered one of his finest works!
Thanks.
>carole w :
Easy to read,easy to understand and earns Arnold a little more trust isssue with me(just in case he runs for another office). Well done.
Sep 28, 2007 08:38 AM
The idea’s been kicking around in GOP circles for years. Now it may be dead for a long time, as it’s clearly radioactive to anyone who tries to revive it.
>Jonathan Hemlock :
A terrible idea meets its ignominious end. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Sep 28, 2007 08:37 AM
You know, I should get some operatives to do that for stock footage …
>That would be a nice one to have. Perhaps they could be smoking cigars and drinking whiskey. That would be perfect!
A very good point.
>Sullihan :
And unconstitutional too. The initiative if passed would deprive the Legislature of the power to determine how electors are elected, which is expressly conferred on it by the US Constitution. (In a similar case years ago the USSC ruled against a state law that required a popular vote to approve a US constitutional amendment). I always thought this idea was a vehicle to raise money, and I am not surprised that its proponents quit when contributions failed to materialize.
Sep 28, 2007 07:09 AM
Wasn’t this initiative promoted heavily by the Flash Report? lol
I thought once salutary aspect was it reminds us how quirky the mechanics of campaigns for President are due to the electoral college. Any margin of victory above 51% is basically wasted. How you campaign and where is shaped by these sorts of considerations. Hey, there is a reason the folks who are experts at electing Presidents make the big bucks–they’ve mastered this arcane art. And I am sure communicated to the powers that be their displeasure as this measure and the danger it posed to their livelihood.
Also, wouldn’t the nightmare for Republicans be Democrats running similar measures in Republican bastions? In fact, has anyone looked at how the percentages work out if the entire country was done the way this measure proposed–would it favor the Dems or the Reps?
But of course it is all now moot.
This was a loser from the beginning.
This was a loser from the beginning.
Does New York have this arrangement? I think the idea could be okay if ALL states follow it.
Incidentally, NWN passed 40,000 comments sometime in the last week.
Hap, I agree that if all the states figured out a way to do it simultaneously in lockstep by some sort of interstate compact, it could work out OK as a crude alternative to amending the Constitution to toss the electoral college and institute election by direct popular vote.
But getting everyone to agree and trust one another is a dope dream.
I sure don’t see it happening.
No, it doesn’t.
>Hap Hazard :
Does New York have this arrangement? I think the idea could be okay if ALL states follow it.
Sep 28, 2007 10:34 AM
Yes, it was.
>Ann :
Wasn’t this initiative promoted heavily by the Flash Report? lol
Sep 28, 2007 09:59 AM
Nationally, I believe it would have favored the Republicans in the last election.
>Dana :
I thought once salutary aspect was it reminds us how quirky the mechanics of campaigns for President are due to the electoral college. Any margin of victory above 51% is basically wasted. How you campaign and where is shaped by these sorts of considerations. Hey, there is a reason the folks who are experts at electing Presidents make the big bucks–they’ve mastered this arcane art. And I am sure communicated to the powers that be their displeasure as this measure and the danger it posed to their livelihood.
Also, wouldn’t the nightmare for Republicans be Democrats running similar measures in Republican bastions? In fact, has anyone looked at how the percentages work out if the entire country was done the way this measure proposed–would it favor the Dems or the Reps?
But of course it is all now moot.
Sep 28, 2007 10:00 AM
Others have already said this, but the current “system” is outdated and has been for nerly 200 years – since the rise of political parties. The original idea was to elect men experienced in the ways of the world to decide, among themselves, who should be president. Not since Washington has that been the way it works.
The best way to go that seems at all practicable, given the reluctance of small states who gain a marginal benefit from the present system, would be to adopt by constitutional amendment the current proposal for all states.
This wasn’t for reform, was it? It was a power play that flopped like it should have.
The GOP needs something to rally the troops. This initiative was a lame attempt, but they need something. It is doubtful that any of the Republicans presidential candidates will do much for them.
At this point, I think they are hanging all their hopes on Clinton being the Democratic nominee. I am not suggesting that Clinton would be a bad president or that she would not win. But the right wing of the Republican Party loves to hate her. It’s something to get their blood pumping.
Dems actually put a similar measure on the Colorado ballot in ’04. It lost. Deservedly. (Also, it was a dumb idea from the get-go; this cycle or next, Dems may well win Colorado outright. We’ve picked up several state leg seats, and a Senate seat…)
Dems actually put a similar measure on the Colorado ballot in ’04. It lost. Deservedly. (Also, it was a dumb idea from the get-go; this cycle or next, Dems may well win Colorado outright. We’ve picked up several state leg seats, and a Senate seat…)
BTW, regarding the question of how such a measure would affect the country as a whole — it would generally favor the Republicans, because the “small states” (population wise) generally vote GOP in presidential elections, and would each get 2 electoral votes from statewide results; at the moment, the House totals would trend Democratic, but that’s more volatile.
The biggest problem with this concept, at the national level, is simply that it would aggravate the “swing state” effect. Most House districts are gerrymandered. Only a small percentage would actually be worth campaigning in. We’d go from having candidates cater to Iowa, to having them cater to one particular district in Iowa. The level of pork directed to the few swing districts would be terrifying.
Oh, and if you really want to fix the system, call your Assemblyman and tell him to support the National Popular Vote law. It already passed the State Senate once.
So far, Marylad is the only state to enact an NPV law.
Those are excellent points, Auros.
>Auros :
BTW, regarding the question of how such a measure would affect the country as a whole — it would generally favor the Republicans, because the “small states” (population wise) generally vote GOP in presidential elections, and would each get 2 electoral votes from statewide results; at the moment, the House totals would trend Democratic, but that’s more volatile.
The biggest problem with this concept, at the national level, is simply that it would aggravate the “swing state” effect. Most House districts are gerrymandered. Only a small percentage would actually be worth campaigning in. We’d go from having candidates cater to Iowa, to having them cater to one particular district in Iowa. The level of pork directed to the few swing districts would be terrifying.
Sep 28, 2007 02:02 PM
You’re right.
>smoker :
The GOP needs something to rally the troops. This initiative was a lame attempt, but they need something. It is doubtful that any of the Republicans presidential candidates will do much for them.
At this point, I think they are hanging all their hopes on Clinton being the Democratic nominee. I am not suggesting that Clinton would be a bad president or that she would not win. But the right wing of the Republican Party loves to hate her. It’s something to get their blood pumping.
Sep 28, 2007 01:49 PM
What a silly party the Republicans have become.
“On second thought, let us not vote for Republicans. They are a silly party.”
I continue to forget not to keep clicking.
> Chris M :
Why do Jonathan’s (welcome) initial posts double-post, but his apologies merely single-post?
Sep 28, 2007 09:14 AM
Fantastic Sites…
[...]this is absolutely fantastic, added your site to my list[...]…