The LAT reports today on the push for an agreement among states as to how they award their Electoral College votes in future presidential elections:

Under a bill passed by the Assembly, California would join an interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the (popular vote) winner nationwide … The same 888-word bill is pending in four other states and is expected to be introduced in every state by January, its sponsors say. The legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes — a minimum of 13 states, depending on population.

Only one Republican Assembly member voted for the bill yesterday. Republican California legislators oppose the measure, although it is cosponsored by Republicans in Colorado, Illinois, Missouri and seems to be exclusively sponsored by Republicans in New York.

California’s Republican legislators commented “I don’t want a candidate to go to 10, 12 big urban centers, win a majority and walk away with the presidency” and “… 50% plus one of the people can vote themselves anything and run roughshod over the rights of the minority, run roughshod over rule of law. That is what the Electoral College is all about.”

Want proof that Assembly Republicans are clueless? Now you have it. The Assembly members ignore the question of why direct election is adequate for every other elected office in this country, but not for the Presidency. The objections they do have are specious.

Historically, the Electoral College had nothing to do with the rights of the minority and everything to do with the era’s limitations. Having ruled out election by Congress, the Founders thought direct election unworkable — voters would only know about and vote for candidates from their state or region. The Electoral College was the compromise solution.

Assembly Republican’s primary objection seems to be the belief that voters in rural areas will be marginalized under the proposed system.* This is questionable. Media buys will cost far less outside major markets — in both absolute and per-thousand dollars — so candidates would get more exposure per dollar spent.

And candidate appearances and media buys will be determined primarily by strategy — get out the base versus capture the (suburban) swing voter. In 2004, rural Republicans would have seen a lot of George Bush.

Even if rural voters were bypassed, Republicans in the state’s major metropolitan areas would actually have votes that count in national elections — and wouldn’t that be an improvement over the current system?

But ignoring our self interest, direct election is the right thing to do. It makes every voter matter and brings Presidential elections in line with how we vote for all other elected offices.

If state Republicans continue to object to this notion, this is one case where we’re glad they’re in the minority.

—–
* based on the above comments, this piece in the Sacramento Bee, and this AP story.

—–
What would have been the effect of direct election? Four elections since 1824 would have gone the other way:

• 2000 (Bush defeated Gore)
• 1888 (Harrison defeated Cleveland)
• 1876 (Hayes defeated Tilden)
• 1824 (Adams defeated Jackson)

There is no popular vote record prior to 1824. Source: National Archives

—–
National Popular Vote’s website is here.

Electoral college background: here and here.
We have some ideologically strange bedfellows in supporting this.

Technorati Tags: California, california legislature, electoral college

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 31st, 2006 at 4:27 pm by A Senior Administration Official and is filed under California Schemin'. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.