Califorina GOP plan to redistribute electoral votes by district in 2008.

[phantom power]

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the California ballot next year that could shake up the 2008 presidential contest, a change Democrats say would rig the election.

California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections - the largest single prize in the nation. But under the proposal, the statewide winner would get only two electoral votes.

The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.

The left-leaning state has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change - if it qualifies for one of two primary ballots next year and is approved by voters - would mean that a Republican would be positioned the following November to snatch 20 or more electoral votes in GOP-leaning districts.

That's a number equal to winning Ohio.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070731/D8QNA55O0.html

[truebrit71]

1. If it's on next years ballot, how could it effect next year's election?

??

[phantom power]

2. I don't know, but I assume on a ballot prior to November.

[Mz Pip]

3. Why not just

go for abolishing the entire electoral college and just have the winner be declared by popular vote?

This idea really is nuts because it would encourage states to set up personalized electoral counts. I can see it now - Red States send the whole basket to the Repugs while the Blue States would divide them up however the Repugs saw fit.

I don't see this passing in California, then again there are enough wing-nuts here to try to make this happen.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[phantom power]

4. Well we know the GOP would fight a popular vote...

just like they would fight a system where electoral votes are allocated by district in all states, which would be perfectly fair. They would fight either system because they know that they would start losing elections.

Just like they are attempting the California-only tactic because it would help them win elections.

I think that states already have the right to allocate electoral votes as they see fit.

[Mz Pip]

9. I think you're right

I seem to remember that one of the New England states divies up it's electoral votes. Can't remember which one, but it has 4 electoral votes.

But cherry picking the big states would definitely change the dynamic.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[aquart]

5. Is it going to pass?

Is it even going to come to a vote?

[phantom power]

6. Beats me...

In 1999 I would have said "What? The supreme court ruling against a Florida recount? That's nuts."

[aquart]

7. The Supreme Court is NOT the California legislature.

[thatsrightimirish]

8. They won't win that

Since a majority of Californians vote for the democratic candidate, all they would have to say is that if this passes there will be a republican president and the proposal will fail.