For a variety of reasons that do not need to be discussed, the Founders included in the Constitution the Electoral College. Usually unimportant, the Electoral College system does create the possibility (and has in more than one election) of the nation being governed by a president with fewer popular votes (but geographically wider support) than hid opponent. This is because of the custom of states awarding all electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes within their borders.

Two states, Maine and Nebraska, currently do not follow this practice, but instead award some of their electoral votes based upon the results of presidential voting within congressional districts. Such a proposal is now being considered in California.

A Republican-backed ballot proposal could split left-leaning California between the Democratic and GOP nominees, tilting the 2008 presidential election in favor of the Republicans.

California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections — the largest single prize in the nation. But a prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the ballot that would award the statewide winner only two electoral votes.

The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.

California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change — if it qualifies for one of two primary ballots next year and is approved by voters — would mean that a Republican would be positioned the following November to snatch 20 or more electoral votes in GOP-leaning districts.

That's a number equal to winning Ohio.

Frankly, I'm opposed to the idea, based upon a reality of American politics -- the gerrymander.

Let's be honest here, both parties seek to maximize their political power in legislative bodies by drawing congressional district lines to partisan advantage. This could, in fact, make the likelihood of an Electoral College victory for the popular vote loser even greater than it is now -- because a majority of a state's electoral votes could go to the candidate with fewer popular votes.

For example, not too many years ago the congressional map here in Texas was drawn so that the Democrats needed only 44% of the votes cast to win 57% of the Congressional seats. Presuming that the presidential vote had mirrored the that outcome, the Republican candidate for president in that year would have received only 16 of 34 electoral votes. Multiply this effect across the 50 states and you can see the potential havoc this could cause -- and the incentive for even greater redistricting shenanigans.

Now I'm not one of those who supports the abolition of the Electoral College. In the past, it has served to legitimize candidates with a minority of the popular vote (Abraham Lincoln once and Bill Clinton twice) by giving them a clear mandate for office. It is, on balance, a good thing as it currently operates -- and tampering with it in this manner strikes me as unwise.

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.