LOS ANGELES - 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.

The so-called Presidential Election Reform Act is being pushed by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer in a Sacramento firm that represents the California Republican Party and has worked with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He did not return phone messages left Monday at his office.

A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman said the governor is not involved with the proposed initiative, and party officials said they have no connection to it.

Democratic consultant Chris Lehane called the plan "an effort to rig the system in order to fix the election."

"If this change is made, it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008," Lehane said in an e-mail.

Nineteen of the state's 53 congressional districts are represented by Republicans. President Bush carried 22 districts in 2004, while losing the statewide vote by double digits.

Only Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes by congressional district.

A draft of the proposed initiative says nixing the winner-take-all system would give presidential candidates "an incentive to campaign in California. ... Many of the geographic areas of the state would be as important to a candidate's chance for victory as many of the smaller states."

"We'll take a serious look at it, once it qualifies for the ballot," state Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring said.

If it does qualify, Democrats probably would have to spend millions of dollars to defeat it, which could drain money from other races. And there are expected to be additional ballot proposals on abortion and other social issues that could drive up GOP turnout.

The state already moved its presidential primary to Feb. 5 in an attempt to increase its clout in national politics.

In that primary, Republicans will award delegates only to the top vote-getter in each congressional district. A Democrat can qualify for a delegate by winning at least 15 percent of the vote in a district.

----------------------------------------------------------------


So Republicans can't win California out right so they try to divide it up so the can win elections. Gerrimandering at it highest, or should I lowest, level.

A move like this would only divide the state up like the Bush team divided national unity. A presidential canidate would only campange in he districts he's popular and not the entire state.

I like to see Republicans complain if Democrat proposed a similar measure in Texas. (Note to self contact the Democratic HQ in Texas.)

the best thing would be to do away with the electoral
college all together the reason it was put in place is
no longer valid

as with all the information available in todays info age

it was put in place for the lack of news getting from point a to other points in the country back in the old days of 3 monthes to get the news

today it usually only takes minutes if that

Wow, with all due respect, this is probably the dumbest thing in a long time.

As it is, with an all-or-nothing electoral system, the Republicans in California are essentially disenfranchised.

If the electoral votes are split up, it simply allows more people's opinions to be heard.


You'd have to be ****ing stupid to think this is an example of gerrymandering. Simply because it could hurt the Democrats because it will remove the unfair situation which has given them an advantage isn't a reason to accuse it of election fixing.

Honestly, it pisses me off when people let their party-loyalty get in the way of rational, logical thinking.

In any event, I'd agree with Adj in that the electoral system is outdated and unnecessary.

Thats because your silly and dont understand what the electorial college vote is about in the first place.
I cant believe you think this splitting of electorial votes is a fair way for a State to hold elections.
I would raise hell if they did it that way here, but hey California is a little strange anyway.
Elect a Governor who is not a naturalized Citizen, and then try to get the Constitution changed so he can run for President.
Bunch of dam hippie green peacers with no common sense. The sad part is I know people who live in California, and many of them dont understand it either!

I am just sitting back LOVING being a democrat right now!! WOO HOO!!!!!

Waving to ya fitness!!!

I vote independent but i agree with robin,the electoral college needs to go.

WRONG The Electoral Collage was put into place by our founding father for A REASON........It was so Small less populated states would have as much as as New York or California..if it was just based on popular vote anyone winning those 2 places would be President it would not matte what the South or Midwest or any other place had to say The Electoral Collage needs to stay as it is for ALL people and not just as is.....Learn History befor you try to change it and sacred Documents.

Yay..............

Randomx, thank you!!!

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me !!!

He is right cute.
Thats exactly why the electorial College is there.
People in NY and California do not have any idea what our concerns and lives are like, nor do we theirs.
The electorial college Vote is meant to level the playing field.

So let me pose a possible correction.

Get rid of the two party system, AND the electoral college, and let those wanting the election to prove themselves to win the majority vote.

The two party system does not work - why? Ok so one is a Democrat or Republican based of some stereotypical view. Being of that view, one automatically 'assumes' that their party is the best to represent them. I bet more than HALF the voters, don't know jack about what's really happening or even what the real views of those seeking office are. They simply cast a 'stereotype' vote.

No parties - just candidates and what the people know about them. No electoral college, only the votes of the people.

Just my suggestion

I like that Redy..I agree most people vote party line rather than platform..I love your posts.very thought provoking.

More Info on the Election Fix!

A Red Play for The Golden State

Jonathan Alter
Is California GOP Trying to Steal the 2008 Election?
There's some malicious mischief at play in efforts to reform our electoral system.

Alter: The Politics of Talking to Dictators
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Aug. 13, 2007 issue - Our way of electing presidents has always been fer-tile ground for mischief. But there's sensible mischief—toying with existing laws and the Constitution to reflect popular will—and then there's the other kind, which tries to rig admission to the Electoral College for strictly partisan purposes. Mischief-makers in California (Republicans) and North Carolina (Democrats) are at work on changes that would subvert the system for momentary advantage and—in ways the political world is only beginning to understand—dramatically increase the odds that a Republican will be elected president in 2008.


Right now, every state except Nebraska and Maine awards all of its electoral votes to the popular-vote winner in that state. So in mammoth California, John Kerry beat George W. Bush and won all 55 electoral votes, more than one fifth of the 270 necessary for election.

Instead of laboring in vain to turn California Red, a clever lawyer for the state Republican Party thought of a gimmicky shortcut. Thomas Hiltachk, who specializes in ballot referenda that try to fool people in the titles and fine print, is sponsoring a ballot initiative for the June 3, 2008, California primary (which now falls four months after the state's presidential primary). The Presidential Election Reform Act would award the state's electoral votes based on who wins each congressional district. Had this idea been in effect in 2004, Bush would have won 22 electoral votes from California, about the same number awarded the winners of states like Illinois or Pennsylvania. In practical terms, adopting the initiative would mean that the Democratic candidate would likely have to win both Ohio and Florida in 2008 (instead of one or the other) to be elected.

Hiltachk, who is lying low for now, is a former campaign lawyer for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The governor's office says Schwarzenegger has no position on the initiative and "had absolutely nothing to do with its development." But whichever way Schwarzenegger goes, several GOP presidential candidates and their financial backers have already offered to help boost the plan. Just interested in good government? They've shown a curious lack of interest in backing the same idea in Red States.

Presumably, the argument to voters in TV ads would be to "make your vote count" and bring the presidential candidates back to California, which has been so reliably Democratic in recent elections that it receives few postprimary visits from candidates in either party. The Democrats would likely counter by saying that Republicans are trying a backhanded way to corrupt the election. With the presidential nominations settled by the time the initiative would be put up to vote, expect big money to be spent on both sides trying to win over the wild cards of California politics—the millions of independents.

Congressional districts, whose lines are drawn by backroom deals, are a weak structure for picking a president. With only three or four of California's districts up for grabs (as a result of gerrymandering, which keeps them noncompetitive), the state would be visited by the candidates only slightly more often under the Hiltachk plan than under the status quo. And if the idea was somehow adopted nationally, it would mean competing for votes in only about 60 far-flung congressional districts—roughly 7 percent of the country. Everyone else's vote would not "count," if you want to look at it that way.

The monkey business underway this month in North Carolina is just as egregious—though with only three or four electoral votes at stake, probably less consequential. Democrats, who usually lose the state in presidential contests but control the legislature and the governor's mansion, make no secret of their desire to win partisan advantage by going to the congressional-district formula.

At least in North Carolina it's clearly constitutional. Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the selection of electors is up to state legislatures "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." When power is delegated to the electorate in referenda, the legal authority gets fuzzy; the Constitution, of course, supersedes state law. In any event, the Hiltachk referendum will face a challenge in court.

Is there a better way to make every vote count? Yes, and it doesn't require a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College. All it would take is some good mischief in state legislatures. In February, a bipartisan coalition of former senators led by Birch Bayh, Jake Garn and Dave Durenberger unveiled a campaign for a national popular vote. Under the plan, state legislatures would pass bills that pledged to award their state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It's not clear which party this would help, but if adopted by as few as 11 states, it would guarantee that the candidate with the most votes actually won the election. Anybody got a problem with that?

Hasn't even happened, but it is already fix'd?
Let's not waste money on an election then.
Democrats already conceeded.

Yeah, I have a problem with that!
I live in WNC not ENC or the piedmont. I dont want some flat lander telling me how to live my life. They dont have the same lifestyle, temperment, or trials to just let have my vote. If they want it let them get it the honest way.
What you are proposeing would end up with state votes going to the highest bidder. Where are you going to find honest enough politicians to delegate a President, for me. Who is going to, and how is that someone, going to prevent controversy over that type system! Im not wanting to give my vote, what little power I have in this country, up for a system like that.

"So let me pose a possible correction.

Get rid of the two party system, AND the electoral college, and let those wanting the election to prove themselves to win the majority vote.

The two party system does not work - why? Ok so one is a Democrat or Republican based of some stereotypical view. Being of that view, one automatically 'assumes' that their party is the best to represent them. I bet more than HALF the voters, don't know jack about what's really happening or even what the real views of those seeking office are. They simply cast a 'stereotype' vote.

No parties - just candidates and what the people know about them. No electoral college, only the votes of the people.

Just my suggestion"


The Left Leaning Candidate would still win Because New York And Cali are both Left Leaning.....New York And Cali have no right to Speak for Utah,TN,AL,NC, And Smaller States WE have been a Great Nation for OVER 200 years with the Foundation Set by our founding fathers.....Just Because you (The Left)can not win a General Election does not Mean you get to Change the Rules.

A typical Bushie, and what the real problem with American Politics!!

One Dy types this:
WRONG The Electoral Collage was put into place by our founding father for A REASON........It was so Small less populated states would have as much as as New York or California..if it was just based on popular vote anyone winning those 2 places would be President it would not matte what the South or Midwest or any other place had to say The Electoral Collage needs to stay as it is for ALL people and not just as is.....Learn History befor you try to change it and sacred Documents.

A couple days later types this:
Get rid of the two party system, AND the electoral college, and let those wanting the election to prove themselves to win the majority vote.

GeeeZzzzzeeeee.............

Fanta that was not me.......

I qouted an above Poster Notice the "<=====Quote Marks??

OK,
Sorry Randomx......