A few weeks ago, I was browsing the New Yorker magazine's website. I came across an article, written by Hendrik Hertzberg (it's linked to in the "print article" format, your printer dialog box may pop up) (Mr. Hertzberg's Wiki article; personal webpage; his New Yorker Magazine blog), in which he details a ballot initiative filed by a resident of California (go here for the California Secretary of State listing of initiatives). From my reading of the article and of the ballot initiative itself, the group filing the ballot initiative seeks to proportionately award California's Electoral votes. From the .pdf file for the initiative: "...Section 2, B, ii: In one presidential elector nominee shall reside in each congressional district in the state and the two remaining presidential elector nominees shall reside in the state", meaning two at-large electors and then one elector in each US Congressional district. I've attached a copy of the initiate to this post.
Mr. Hertzberg goes on in his article to detail the group behind this ballot initiative: "Nominally, the sponsor of No. 07-0032 is Californians for Equal Representation. But that’s just a letterhead—there’s no such organization. Its address is the office suite of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, the law firm for the California Republican Party, and its covering letter is signed by Thomas W. Hiltachk, the firm’s managing partner and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s personal lawyer for election matters." ; he follows up with some other ballot initiatives that the same group has attempted to win passage of in the past.
Mr. Hertzberg then comes to the point of his article: that this devolution of electoral power is wrong, in his opinion, because "...what No. 07-0032 calls for while everybody else is still going with winner take all by state, the real-world result will be to give Party B (in this case the Republicans) an unearned, Ohio-size gift of electoral votes." His next to last paragraph more fully states Mr. Hertzberg's problems with this initiative, so I'll quote it at length:
The California initiative flunks even the categorical-imperative test. Imagine, as a thought experiment, that all the states were to adopt this “reform” at once. Electoral votes would still be winner take all, only by congressional district rather than by state. Instead of ten battleground states and forty spectator states, we’d have thirty-five battleground districts and four hundred spectator districts. The red-blue map would be more mottled, and in some states more people might get to see campaign commercials, because media markets usually take in more than one district. But congressional districts are as gerrymandered as human ingenuity and computer power can make them. The electoral-vote result in ninety per cent of the country would still be a foregone conclusion, no matter how close the race.
To me, Mr. Hertzberg's problems with this initiative seem to be that one, it's backed by no-doubt-about-it Republicans with (in his opinion) shady histories; and two, it moves the "battleground" of elections from the state-wide level to the Congressional district level.
I don't see where either of those is a problem.
The source of an idea or initiative isn't overwhelmingly important to me, on the theory that if one rabidly opposes all that originates with a specific person or political party, it's much easier to fall into a trap of opposing something that is genuinely useful or appropriate.
His other apparent problem with this initiative, that it moves the "battleground" of elections from the state-wide level to the Congressional district level, doesn't hold any water with me. In my opinion, this would devolve electoral votes (and therefore power) to the most basic representative level with have, the Federal Congressional district. It would give more voting power to more people, to allow them to vote for candidates that they identify with or support, without having their votes wasted. A quick and dirty example: say this ballot initiative was used here in Illinois. Cook County and the Collar Counties would still lean heavily towards the Democrats. But those of use who live in more conservative, downstate congressional districts would be able to vote for a Republican without having to fear our votes were wasted, because the entirety of Illinois' electoral votes would go to a Democrat, with their candidate receiving half plus one of the state-wide vote. I personally believe that this would open the door to more third party candidates, because I think it would give them an incentive to create better party structures in areas where they could win electoral votes, instead of the being on top of the "also-ran" list.
So what if there would be more "safe seats" or "spectator districts". That's already a fact of the electoral map of the US; I hope everyone is cognizant that there are districts and regions that nearly always vote for the same party, no matter who's running. This ballot initiative would not change the electoral map to that "safe seat" format, from some mythical "equal chance" idea. It's already a fact of the electoral map of the US. To me, this ballot initiative would move the battleground of Presidential elections to the most basic, most local, most personable level possible: the Congressional district
Why is that not a good idea?
HG
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 2007-07-17_07-0032_Initiative.pdf | 737.45 KB |
It's a bad idea because it further erodes the importance of the States.
See the Academy, where we start at pretension and never look back.
This is a bad idea because it amounts to nothing more than a power play by the minority party in California. One can couch the discussion in whatever philosophical or ideological beliefs they choose. What it comes down to is a pure and simple power play by the minority party. The Republicans are trying to do it by initiative in California and the Democrats in North Carolina (a red presidential state) tried to do it through legislation. The battleground should be neither states nor congressional districts. The battleground should be the individual voter. Presidential candidates should compete for individual voters. Every vote should be important and equal. The only way to accomplish that is a direct national popular vote for President. That system would eliminate battleground and safe states as we know them and would therefore make every vote equal. Currently a candidate would much rather have a vote in Ohio or Wisconsin, i.e. a battleground state, than in a safe state like Rhode Island, Montana, or Texas. A national popular vote would force candidates to compete for every vote and make winning or losing an individual state or congressional district irrelevant. A group called National Popular Vote is trying to accomplish this goal on a state-by-state basis. Their proposal has been endorsed by the NY Times (where I read about it), the LA Times, and lots of other papers across the country.
"A national popular vote would force candidates to compete for every vote and make winning or losing an individual state or congressional district irrelevant"
The actual effect of this policy would be that candidates would spend almost all of their resources in the largest media markets, and ignore the smaller media markets. It doesn't improve the situation, just shifts the emphasis in resources.
"A group called National Popular Vote is trying to accomplish this goal on a state-by-state basis. Their proposal has been endorsed by the NY Times (where I read about it), the LA Times, and lots of other papers across the country."
I am shocked that major media outlets in the largest markets in America would endorse a proposal that would encourage national candidates to spend all their time and money in those same major media markets.
The problem I see with it is that it further erodes the republic and moves us closer to a true popular democracy.
"The problem I see with it is that it further erodes the republic and moves us closer to a true popular democracy."
Well, that goes without saying.
As a staunch believer in federalism, my knee-jerk reaction is to be opposed to things that dilute the power and distinctions of the states, and I haven't seen any electoral vote reform plans that have overcome those concerns.
Not to mention Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Electors , not the popular vote, elect the President.
Quick question to IP: Would you be able to add to topics list (the list of areas one can post a thread)? I specifically would ask for one on voting, voting issues, maybe federal vs. state vs. local election voting issues, something like that. There wasn't anything I specifically saw in the list for voting issues, but wanted to ask you about it. Thanks.
Now, to the topic at hand. So far, there seem to be only two arguments advanced in this thread for not supporting the California ballot initiative noted above: 1) it would further erode the power of the many states -- further erode the nature of our republican form of government, moving it closer to a popular democracy; and 2) the idea came from backers of the (current) minority party in the state of California.
I'll briefly deal with (to me anyways) the irony of Lars saying he has a problem with the California ballot initiative because it comes from the minority party's backers. Did you not read where i stated the automatic dismissal of an idea or proposal simply because it comes from the opposing party is poor politics and poor logic? or did you just gloss over that point? By the way, the North Carolina initiative was begun in the (Democratic-controlled) state legislature; do you find the North Carolina initiative as unappealing and wrong as the California one, or is it more proper because the majority party is introducing it?
To everyone who advanced the argument that this initiative would further erode the influence and power of the many states (or the concurrent argument that this would erode our long-standing republican form of government): I actually agree with you. I played a bit of devil's advocate in my original post, because i thought the article brought up a very good discussion point. After reading of the excesses of pure democracy, and seeing what a "popularly elected" President can do, for good and for bad, I'm more convinced than ever that the Founders where correct to fear the excesses of democracy, and to restrain it and form the young country into a republic.
jeez, that sounded pretentious as all hell, didn't it? :-)
HG
This ploy by California Democrats should make clear to people in "blue" states the dangers of electing Republicans who profess to be different from the theocratic corporatists who dominate the GOP at the national level. The supposedly "pro-choice" "pro-environment" Repub will support every effort of the national GOP to turn the country into a plutocratic Taliban-state that works to dominate the world by threats of violence.
This latest ploy is a sad bit of hypocrisy that has zero chance of coming to pass. What's the problem here? Well, it's transparently obvious that these Republicans are cynically pushing a proposal they know perfectly well they don't believe in. Are they pushing for Texas, or other "red states" to adopt similar measures? I don't think so, for reasons that are self-apparent: if they can get "blue states" to split their votes while keeping the "red states" winner-take-all they win.
Of course, the Republicans don't really believe the line they're spouting here. See whether they support an amendment to institute this policy at a national level. They won't of course, because doing this would move power towards places where people actually live in large numbers and reduce the inordinate power of the rural white Christians who under the present system enjoy the benefits of the institutionalized racism that gives individuals living in, say, Wyoming, so much more say in national politics than those living in more diverse urban centers. At least Mr. Hertzberg (and Loren Heal) are honest enough to admit this.
A national popular vote is a fine idea, but the idea of splitting electoral votes just in a few big Democratic state is really a non-starter.
Don't hold back, Interloper, tell us how you really feel :-)
You are exactly right about one thing - in states with dominant parties there is no way it will change from winner-take-all.
"Quick question to IP: Would you be able to add to topics list (the list of areas one can post a thread)? I specifically would ask for one on voting, voting issues, maybe federal vs. state vs. local election voting issues, something like that. There wasn't anything I specifically saw in the list for voting issues, but wanted to ask you about it. Thanks."
I have a category for "election law" that I use for those subjects. Is that too broad?
"A national popular vote is a fine idea, but the idea of splitting electoral votes just in a few big Democratic state is really a non-starter."
I don't care for either idea.
well, we all know what happened the last time a direct democracy was tried.
http://www.mises.org/story/2138
Every time the minority party proposes a change in election law, it should always be viewed with the utmost suspicion, no matter which party it is.
"theocratic corporatists..." "plutocratic Taliban-state..." "institutionalized racism..." Yawn. I thought this issue deserved some actual research instead of the typical tired partisan knee-jerk shrill response (not that I'm pointing fingers). If looking at the 2004 presidential election by district: California Kerry = 31 Bush = 22 Texas Bush = 25 Kerry = 7 (yes, that's a single digit) "Are they pushing for Texas, or other "red states" to adopt similar measures? I don't think so, for reasons that are self-apparent" - Interloper, I'm sure national Republicans would be HAPPY to adopt the by-distict measure in Texas for the same opportunity in California. I assume you would support such a dual state effort in the name of fairness, correct?
On August 13th, 2007 at 11:34 AM, IlliniPundit said: "I have a category for "election law" that I use for those subjects. Is that too broad?"
It may be; i honestly didn't see that category when i was typing my original post, but if i had, i would have probably not chosen it. I would've over-focused on the word "law", and ignored the "election" portion. I think it's an ok category title, i'll just read more carefully in the future ;-)
On August 13th, 2007 at 12:10 PM, prairie biker (not verified) said: "Every time the minority party proposes a change in election law, it should always be viewed with the utmost suspicion, no matter which party it is."
I never wanted to imply that proposals like the California ballot initiative shouldn't be scrutinized and studied, just that automatically disparaging and rejecting proposals from the opposing group is bad logic and bad politics.
To interloper...
On August 13th, 2007 at 11:22 AM, Interloper (not verified) said: "This ploy by California Democrats should make clear to people in "blue" states the dangers of electing Republicans who profess to be different from the theocratic corporatists who dominate the GOP at the national level."
I'm not sure what you mean by this, as the California ballot initiative was organized by Republican Party supporters, and the North Carolina proposal was initiated by the Democratic-controlled state legislature. As far as the original article goes, I don't remember there being any comments from California Democrats or Democrat Party supporters.
The supposedly "pro-choice" "pro-environment" Repub will support every effort of the national GOP to turn the country into a plutocratic Taliban-state that works to dominate the world by threats of violence.
Something so far outside the original post or the course of the thread so far, I have no idea how to respond...
This latest ploy is a sad bit of hypocrisy that has zero chance of coming to pass. What's the problem here? Well, it's transparently obvious that these Republicans are cynically pushing a proposal they know perfectly well they don't believe in. Are they pushing for Texas, or other "red states" to adopt similar measures? I don't think so, for reasons that are self-apparent: if they can get "blue states" to split their votes while keeping the "red states" winner-take-all they win.
So you know, through your experience or work, what the chances of this ballot initiative passing are? By the same token, you are so able and experienced, you know precisely what every Republican (or Republican-leaning supporter) of the California ballot initiative thinks or believes about the ballot initiative in question? By the way, this is a California state ballot initiative, begun and organized by state party supporters. Who cares what someone in California thinks about how Texas or any other state choose and apportion their electors?
Of course, the Republicans don't really believe the line they're spouting here. See whether they support an amendment to institute this policy at a national level. They won't of course, because doing this would move power towards places where people actually live in large numbers and reduce the inordinate power of the rural white Christians who under the present system enjoy the benefits of the institutionalized racism that gives individuals living in, say, Wyoming, so much more say in national politics than those living in more diverse urban centers. At least Mr. Hertzberg (and Loren Heal) are honest enough to admit this.
IL voter answered this section well enough, so i'll leave it there...
A national popular vote is a fine idea...
Couldn't disagree more...
HG
The argument that anyone's vote is "wasted" or "doesn't count" under the current system is a joke. Having your vote counted doesn't mean having your candidate win. Unless you're poor and black in Ohio or Florida, your vote is tabulated and assuredly does count. If you're a Republican in a blue state like Illinois or California and upset that your candidate always loses, why don't you try to change votes instead of whining about the rules?
Here more food for thought. California has 100 times as many people as tiny Wyoming, but both states have two U.S. senators, meaning one Wyoming vote in a senate election is 100 times as powerful as one Californian's vote. If you want to talk about votes not counting, here you have it.
And don't give me that BS about "states' rights" -- there is no such thing as a state apart from the people who live in it, and surely no one would argue that the trees, weeds and ditches that populate Wyoming should count just as much as the real people who live in the nation's most important state. That just wouldn't jibe with your supposed respect for the value of human life.
"If you're a Republican in a blue state like Illinois or California and upset that your candidate always loses, why don't you try to change votes instead of whining about the rules?"
Cosign.
"one Wyoming vote in a senate election is 100 times as powerful as one Californian's vote. If you want to talk about votes not counting, here you have it."
- Ah, the new liberal argument for 2008. Count the Vote, Abolish the Senate! That would mean no more Kennedy, Boxer, or Leahy. Wait, now why am I opposed to this idea?
I'm as big a family-hating, terrorist-hugging, baby-eating liberal as they come, and even I can't take Anon 2:33's comment seriously. We have both a House and a Senate. Population-based and non population based representation. To suggest that the latter is "wasting votes" is just plain silly.
"theocratic corporatists..." "plutocratic Taliban-state..." "institutionalized racism..." Yawn.
Ah, Summer among the Republicans...
Anyway, moving to popular elections is generally a fine idea (and a favorite hobby horse of Markos over at the Daily Kos). Personally (as along as they're taking pony requests), I'd like to see the US move away from congressional distircts, so that congressional reps could be allocated on the basis of who wins what % of votes in the state. That would really open the way for socialists and other third party candidates to break the corporate duopoly that now runs the US like Coke and Pepsi run the beverage section at Meijer.
Don't hold back, Interloper, tell us how you really feel :-)
Were I to do that, I'm afraid, the light of truth would leave nothing left of Illinipundit.com. Best to administer it in small doses...
And don't give me that BS about "states' rights" -- there is no such thing as a state apart from the people who live in it
This would put you at odds with those who wrote our Constitution.
"Ah, Summer among the Republicans..."
- Yes, we can hardly hear the shrill screams of liberals over the sounds of the melting icecaps. Thank God for global warming.
"Were I to do that, I'm afraid, the light of truth would leave nothing left of Illinipundit.com. Best to administer it in small doses..."
:-)
On August 13th, 2007 at 03:35 PM, Interloper (not verified) said: "Personally...I'd like to see the US move away from congressional distircts, so that congressional reps could be allocated on the basis of who wins what % of votes in the state."
So you would prefer a parliamentarian system of government, with proportional voting, versus our federal, first-past-the-post voting system? Why?
Also, my earlier reply at 1:58 p.m. probably came off more snarky than i intended; for that, my apologies. I would still like an answer to the questions I posed in that reply. Thanks
HG
Would there be such a thing as the State of Illinois if no one lived here? Of course not. The only source of authority is the people. The notion that the state is a being unto itself, separate from the people who empower it, is absurd, whether or not our forefathers found it convenient.
I would love to see a nation ballot initiative that would change all of the states from all or nothing setups to percentage based, but it's simply not practical to do it piece by piece as both of the great satans, I mean power parties would just jockey to win elections and stop agitating for the reform once they felt they had an advantage.
This is the problem with any of these "pro-democracy" initiatives. Even gerrymandering isn't bad persay until it's used simply to put one party or another into power.