Two states are looking at changing the way electoral votes are awarded. Opponents of the measures claim the move is aimed at stealing the election, while proponents claim it’s a way to force candidates into campaigning in areas they wouldn’t normally visit.

But apparently, which side you take depends on where the initiative is being introduced.

In North Carolina, a state that has gone Republican since 1980, a plan is being introduced by Democrats “to improve voter participation and encourage presidential hopefuls of both parties to campaign in the state.”

Republicans call it “a cheap way to give Democrats … some electoral votes.”

But in California, a state that has gone Democrat since 1988, Republicans are introducing a bill to do the same thing to “give presidential candidates “an incentive to campaign in California”.”

Democrats call the plan “an effort to rig the system in order to fix the election.”

Welcome to American politics.

1. While I have great concerns at abandoning the winner-take-all system, I have no doubts that these efforts would stand up to constitutional muster. After all, the Constitution says that the states get to decide how to partition its electoral votes, and Maine and Nebraska don’t currently have a winner-take-all approach (though it always works out that way).

   I’ve actually seen that an initiative is in place in states like MO, CO, CA, LA, and others to give all of the electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. If that were in place in 2000, Gore would have won; however, if it were in place in 2004, then Bush would have beat the crap out of Kerry in the electoral college with CA’s 55 electoral votes.

   I do like your point about the hypocrisy, though. In NC, Dems say they just want to “improve voter participation”, but in CA, these same Dems think it amounts to grand larceny. Go figure.

   Comment by crushliberalism — 1:30 pm
   

2. Frankly, I do not think we should have a national popularity contest for the office of Chief Executive. The closest we should come is within the individual states a vote to see how the EC votes will be apportioned. (Pretty much like it is now.) If we ever go to a national popular vote vs. the EC - we may as well place the constitution in the cornerstone of the next federal building to be built.

   Some would consider a national popual vote as an evolution brought on by the times; others would consider it a ‘de-volution’ or decaying of a system that works well for a republic. Count me in the latter group.

   Comment by Old Soldier — 2:18 pm
   

3. […] Update: I forgot to mention this story. A master stroke if it pans out, but would a Democratic majority really be so stupid as to push something like that through? If a Republican majority is that stupid in North Carolina, why not? […]

   Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Democratic poll: GOP looking at another blue wave next year — 2:56 pm
   

4. Why bother to vote if the vote you cast in your state could be cancelled out by the other 49 states? These laws basically say that no matter how your state voted, the official representation of your state into the electoral college would be dependant on what happened outside of your state.

   Why even bother having states?

   Comment by SouthernRoots — 4:50 pm
   

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.