COLUMNIST
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
The state Assembly approved a bill earlier this month that would award the state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the nation's popular vote.
Seven states and the District of Columbia, with a combined 77 electoral votes, have approved similar measures. The law will not be activated until states totaling 270 electoral votes – the majority needed to elect a president – approve the change.
The state-by-state effort is designed to circumvent the constitutional mandate that the electoral college choose the president, since it appears unlikely Congress will amend that provision. California's bill passed in a 51-21 vote, with just four Republicans joining 47 Democrats in voting aye. If signed into law, it would add 55 electoral votes to the national compact.
The most obvious argument for a popular vote is the fact that three presidents who were seated despite being out-polled: George W. Bush, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Benjamin Harrison - all Republicans. In all but two states, the winner among the state's voters receives all that state's electoral votes – a system that led to these three anomalies.
The bill's author, Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-South San Francisco, also points out that while presidential candidates are quick to visit California to raise funds, they do little campaigning here and once elected pay more attention to swing states. If they won based on the national popular vote, they'd likely spend more time – and campaign money – in the state.
GOP foes
Republican opponents note that the states that have passed a National Popular Vote bill so far are all controlled by Democrats. Some say that the provision would strengthen Democrats' hand because they could focus voter drives in urban areas, which are typically blue.
"That means that Republicans within the L.A. media market will have a much harder time getting elected," wrote California Republican Party Chairman Tom del Beccaro in an article opposing the change. "The bottom line is that Democrats will run more ads in the Los Angeles area to run up their vote totals and that will harm the chances of any Republicans within range of that media market."
Additionally, some GOP foes have also questioned the constitutionality of the state-by-state approach.
Outspoken Republican advocates for the measure include state Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel. In a co-authored article, she disputes del Beccaro's analysis, which she says "assumes that the hundreds of millions of union dollars that have been spent on political campaigns in the past couple years and tens of thousands of union workers that have turned-out Democrat voters have had no effect on our elections.
"This argument fails to take into consideration the fact that media prices in urban areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco are the most expensive in the world and generate the smallest return on the investment. On the other hand, Republican voters tend to live in suburban and rural areas of the state where media prices are dramatically less. In other words, Republicans will be able to turn-out more voters for less money."
But Walters goes farther than that, calling the National Popular Vote "the California Republican Party's only remaining hope if it intends to resurrect itself during our lifetimes."
"Because presidential candidates will be forced to campaign in our state, campaign funds raised here will actually be used to rebuild California's Republican Party infrastructure," Walters writes.
The bill pending in Sacramento is expected to pass the Senate – as similar bills did in 2006 and 2008. Those two were vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Gov. Jerry Brown hasn't signaled how he feels about the bill.
Seven states and the District of Columbia, with a combined 77 electoral votes, have approved similar measures. The law will not be activated until states totaling 270 electoral votes – the majority needed to elect a president – approve the change.
Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel, is one of the few Republicans in the state legislature who favors a proposed bill to elect the president by popular - rather than electoral college - vote. Register file photo.
The state-by-state effort is designed to circumvent the constitutional mandate that the electoral college choose the president, since it appears unlikely Congress will amend that provision. California's bill passed in a 51-21 vote, with just four Republicans joining 47 Democrats in voting aye. If signed into law, it would add 55 electoral votes to the national compact.
The most obvious argument for a popular vote is the fact that three presidents who were seated despite being out-polled: George W. Bush, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Benjamin Harrison - all Republicans. In all but two states, the winner among the state's voters receives all that state's electoral votes – a system that led to these three anomalies.
The bill's author, Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-South San Francisco, also points out that while presidential candidates are quick to visit California to raise funds, they do little campaigning here and once elected pay more attention to swing states. If they won based on the national popular vote, they'd likely spend more time – and campaign money – in the state.
GOP foes
Republican opponents note that the states that have passed a National Popular Vote bill so far are all controlled by Democrats. Some say that the provision would strengthen Democrats' hand because they could focus voter drives in urban areas, which are typically blue.
"That means that Republicans within the L.A. media market will have a much harder time getting elected," wrote California Republican Party Chairman Tom del Beccaro in an article opposing the change. "The bottom line is that Democrats will run more ads in the Los Angeles area to run up their vote totals and that will harm the chances of any Republicans within range of that media market."
Additionally, some GOP foes have also questioned the constitutionality of the state-by-state approach.
Outspoken Republican advocates for the measure include state Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel. In a co-authored article, she disputes del Beccaro's analysis, which she says "assumes that the hundreds of millions of union dollars that have been spent on political campaigns in the past couple years and tens of thousands of union workers that have turned-out Democrat voters have had no effect on our elections.
"This argument fails to take into consideration the fact that media prices in urban areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco are the most expensive in the world and generate the smallest return on the investment. On the other hand, Republican voters tend to live in suburban and rural areas of the state where media prices are dramatically less. In other words, Republicans will be able to turn-out more voters for less money."
But Walters goes farther than that, calling the National Popular Vote "the California Republican Party's only remaining hope if it intends to resurrect itself during our lifetimes."
"Because presidential candidates will be forced to campaign in our state, campaign funds raised here will actually be used to rebuild California's Republican Party infrastructure," Walters writes.
The bill pending in Sacramento is expected to pass the Senate – as similar bills did in 2006 and 2008. Those two were vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Gov. Jerry Brown hasn't signaled how he feels about the bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment