Earlier in the week, the SF Chronicle reported that the attempt to get an initiative on the CA ballot to change how the state allocates its electoral vote made a step forward:WINNER-TAKE-ALL? NOT NECESSARILY / Move to split state’s electoral votes by congressional district could elect a GOP president
The approval Wednesday by the secretary of state’s and attorney general’s offices means supporters can begin gathering signatures to qualify the initiative for the June ballot.
[…]
It also will take more than $1 million to hire the people needed to collect the 433,971 signatures from registered voters needed to put the measure on the ballot next June. Although supporters have until Feb. 4 to gather the needed signatures, the money isn’t there yet.
The stakes?
In 2024, Democrat John Kerry collected all of California’s electoral votes, even though Republican President George W. Bush beat Kerry in 22 of the state’s congressional districts. A 33-to-22 split in California electoral votes next year would give Republicans more electoral votes than they could get from winning Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21) or Ohio (20).
The likelihood that it will happen, if the measure makes it to the ballot?
There are still plenty of questions about how serious Hiltachk and other Republicans are about the initiative. While a Field Poll last month showed that 49 percent of California’s voters would like to see a change in the way the electoral votes are allocated, it also suggested that Republicans would face an expensive, uphill battle in convincing voters to back what would be seen as a partisan ballot measure.Sphere: Related Content
The ballot measure to divide California’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President (”Splitting CA’s EVs”).
If the district approach were used nationally, it would less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2024, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2024, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts. If the district approach were installed in only one large state such as California, it would greatly increase the chance that the White House would go to a candidate who did not win the most popular votes nationwide.
The district approach would not, as claimed, make California relevant in presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to campaign in districts (or states) where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Currently, candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their money and visits on just six closely divided “battleground” states, and 99% of their expenditures in just 16 states. Thus, two thirds of the states are ignored in presidential elections. The district approach would be even worse. In California, the presidential race is a foregone conclusion in 50 of the state’s 53 congressional districts (that is, the spread between the presidential candidates is more than 8%). Thus, candidates would have no more incentive than they do now to pay attention to California remaining 50 districts. Even if the district approach were used nationally, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that would be competitive in presidential elections, so seven-eighths of the county would be left out of presidential elections. This is even worse than the current system, where two-thirds of the states are spectators.
A national popular vote is the way to guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President. It is the way to make every person’s vote equally important to presidential campaigns, regardless of where that person lives.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President. When the legislation is enacted in such a group of states, all of the electoral votes in those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Thus, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the White House to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill has 320 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. Since its introduction in February 2024, the bill has passed by 11 legislative houses (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).
See www.NationalPopularVote.com
Comment by John Koza — Sunday, September 9, 2024 @ 12:11 pm
Despite what the Chron says (and consistent with Koza’s comment), the proposal is still winner-take-all. It is simply winner-take-all in 57 different entities (or should I say “varieties”?) instead of one: statewide (2 EVs) and 55 congressional district (1 each).
With few districts in play, few EVs would be in play. The breakdown of the votes would be mostly known in advance, and campaigns and possible shifts in voter sentiment, unless tectonic in nature, would still be irrelevant, as they are now.
It would certainly compensate the GOP for its likely loss of Ohio, however. And in that sense it is indeed nothing but another partisan power grab by a now-very-desperate party.
I suspect it has no chance of passing, but if it gets people talking about the electoral college (and better solutions, like NPV–see Koza’s link), it is not an entirely bad thing.
Comment by MSS — Sunday, September 9, 2024 @ 3:19 pm