Elections With A Twist

The Washington Post reports on a move by California Republicans to change how the state awards its 55 electoral votes. Under the current format, the winner of the state's popular vote takes all 55 electoral votes. If the new initiative goes through, one electoral vote would be issued for each congressional district, with the statewide winner receiving two more electoral votes.

This would cause a monumental shift in election strategy. For example, in the 2004 election, Bush would have received 22 electoral votes instead of 0, and Kerry would have only gotten 33. Maine and Nebraska currently use a system like the proposal; Colorado voters soundly defeated such a proposition in 2004.

Democrats in California are obviously distressed about the initiative since California has tilted left for the past four elections. They're confident in defeating the initiative, since history shows a well-funded "no" campaign almost always defeats a well-funded "yes" campaign.

Supporters could make a strong run at it, though, since initial polling shows 47% in favor (with Democrats evenly split). When the political implications were pointed out, Democrat support fell off sharply, and Republican support rose just as sharply. Overall, the support is currently at 49% for and 42% against.

I'm no expert here, but my first impression is that this system could be good for three reasons. First, it eliminates the whining about winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote. Not a big deal, but I'm really tired of hearing that overused complaint. Second, this sort of a system would make the "calling" of states for certain candidates far more complicated, thus reducing the chances of TV networks broadcasting erroneous predictions and affecting voter turnout in the last couple hours of election nights. Let the votes be counted first, then announce the results. Makes sense, right? Third, it seems to me this would reflect a much more accurate picture of the voters' intentions, especially in states which are almost evenly split like Missouri. Here, we have a very Republican rural base and a very Democrat metropolitan base, and the state usually comes down to a very slim majority in one direction or the other. It would be a much more accurate picture of the true wishes of the voters if the electoral votes would be split the same way. And isn't that what elections are all about?

There's my two cents.