Thursday, August 16, 2007

Dems wary of accurate voter representation in electoral college

Let me say this up front. I in no way support abolishing the electoral college system in the US. To do so would merely make the Prez/VP election nothing more than a popular vote, and the cities' voters would overwhelmingly control rural America by sheer mass of population in the urban areas.

I will also say that the electoral college could use some alteration. It's pretty darned frustrating to have a 49-51% split, and see the 51% take all, ignoring the other 49%'s wishes.

Yet, in the wake of two Dubya election successes, there's been alot of whining by Democrats in general, and increased calls to eliminate the electoral college. To them, the candidate with the most votes (one person, one vote, regardless of demography) should win.

Were that the case, Bill Clinton wouldn't have been elected either, garnishing only in the 30% of all popular votes.

In California, they are,
proposing a plan that divides the electoral college votes in a way that reflects the results of the states votes, district by district. This instead of awarding all votes to the popular winner.

You would think the Dems would love the notion of voters having a more accurate count of their votes, yes?

Not so.

LA lawyer with ties to the Republican Party wants California voters to change the way the nation's most populous state awards its electoral votes -- a proposal Democrats call a power grab but supporters describe as a blueprint for fairness in presidential contests.


California allots its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections, a practice followed in most states.

But the proposal calls for awarding only two electoral votes to the statewide winner and the rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts. The change, in effect, would create 53 races with one electoral vote each that would make the state into a grab-bag for candidates in both parties.

California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. The change -- if it qualifies for the June primary ballot 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


The committee is being supported by U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Democratic leaders in the Legislature.

The proposal is a "power grab orchestrated by the Republicans," Feinstein and Boxer said in a joint statement. It's "another cynical move to keep the presidency in Republican control."

Feinstein, among others, are on record with her crusade to place urbanites in control of elections.

"The Electoral College is an anachronism, and the time has come to bring our democracy into the 21st century," Feinstein said in a statement. "During the founding years of the republic, the Electoral College may have been a suitable system, but today it is flawed and amounts to national elections being decided in several battleground states.''

Yes, Ms. Feinstein. That's the way it is. We are not a democracy, but a Republic. And it was created as such to insure than SF, NYC and other major urban centers do not exercise complete power over the rest of the nation. Elections have been, and will continue to be close in results. And sometimes, you lose.

Personally, I think the proposed California plan would better reflect who the country actually voted for. Now if we could just get the voter fraud bit under control....

No comments: