Arnold is either for electoral reform or against it

California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke out firmly and forcefully and confusingly today on the future of one of two controversial proposals to reform the way we elect presidents.

California Republicans have proposed a state initiative to change the winner-take-all system of awarding the state's 55 electoral votes. Currently, the presidential candidate with the most popular votes gets all 55. Under the new measure, as The Times' Dan Morain explains in his recent story, electoral votes would be awarded by how individual congressional districts vote, which would likely allow the GOP to gain at least some electoral votes in a state that otherwise votes consistently Democratic.

California Democrats have proposed a competing initiative aimed at having the state join the movement toward electing the president nationally by popular votes only: the one with the most wins.

Today, Schwarzenegger was asked where he stands on the GOP proposal. Here's his response:

"Well, I haven't seen their language, so I don't know exactly what it says. But in principle, I would say that coming from the sports background and getting a lot of my teachings from sports, I don't like to change the rules in the middle of the game. So that is in principle."

One would think from those words that he doesn't like the idea, right? However, the governor had more to say:

"But I haven't looked at the language and I'm not saying I'm against it or I'm for it or anything. I'm just saying in principle I don't like to change the rules in the middle of the game."

So, exactly what game are we playing here?

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Justin]

I, for one, support this measure. Everyone should have a voice, and the 'winner-takes-all' system is not appropriate for large states as it voids the vote of large segments of the population that are in opposition to the majority.

I live in Austin, Tx, which was split into 3 districts in the most recent redistricting plan, none of which are contained completely within Travis county, where Austin is located. Travis county consistently votes left-of-center. In the system above, at least our vote would register for who we voted for, so what if the rest of Texas votes right-of-center? All I care about is that my vote was counted towards who I voted for, even within the electoral college system. Right now, several of Texas' 32 districts vote left, but their voice is suppressed by the state's 'winner-takes-all' system.

A note to those who may be interested in this: Maine and Nebraska both have systems that can divvy votes proportionately. Each district gets a vote, and the overall winner of the state gets the 2 remaining votes. This was the idea of the check & balance of the electoral college(if you believe in such a thing); small states can have all their votes go towards one candidate(example - Montana would have to have all of it's vote go towards one candidate with only one 'at large' district, Kentucky's 5 districts would likely get to decide whether to have the winner-takes-all system or proportionate voting), and larger states distribute between candidates with the overall winner in the state getting a boost from the extra 2 votes. (The 34 electors in Texas equal the total number of the Texas delegation - 32 U.S. Representatives + 2 U.S. Senators. There are 32 electoral districts in the state)

Don't the political minority in states have a right to have their voice heard? Often times, these populations of the political minority are larger than many of our states, but their voice repressed by the very state that endows them with so many rights. Even worse, I believe that all the prerequisites are there in the federal framework to keep the states from doing this to their citizens. After a certain size, you should not be able to have a winner-takes-all system for your state as it is discriminatory. (Only political majority get their vote counted as they voted)

For our representative democracy to work, we must dismantle the winner-takes-all system from larger states like California, Texas, and New York.

[Stephen Cassidy]

I wonder if Arnold and the Reps had this initiative in mind when they agreed with the Dems to move the Presidential primary to a separate election in February and thereby dilute the Dem turnout for the June 2008 statewide election.

In the end, I see Arnold supporting this initiative. It allows him to curry favor and repair relations with core Rep voters at no cost to himself. Arnold's expressions of doubt today about the initiative are simply a bargaining chip with Rep legislators to get behind his agenda on health care and other issues.

[MZoom]

I don't mind electoral reform. But everywhere I've seen this topic debated on the web, the discussion inevitably took the same path: electoral college is fair/unfair/good/obsolete. There was no attempt to talk about changes in constitutional terms. The authors of the Constitution defended their work to the colonist through the Federalist Papers. One of the editorials entitled "The Mode of Electing a President" (Paper No. 68), explains why the EC was formed in the first place. If we're to make changes, shouldn't the argument at least start there? After all, these guys are the source.

As far as the current proposal, I think it's better than the Democratic version since all it really does is re-allocate votes under the existing system as opposed to popular vote, which has fewer protections from fraud. However, I'd be in favor of leaving the process alone. Let's not confuse a broken system with a system where people just don't like the results.

BTW, the editorial I was talking about can be found here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_68.html

[Frank F]

Justin, you're right:in principle, but if California is the only state to make this change, it gives an outsized advantage to the party of George W. Bush. The President of the United States is the President should be the winner of the national popular vote. Period.

[jeff]

The Republican proposal is a blatant power grab because it modifies California's electoral college rules without any change in other state's rules. As a result, the Republicans would gain 20 or more electoral college votes in the next election.

I hate the electoral college, and would like to see it dismantled. But piecemeal isn't a fair way to do it. The best way I've seen to render the electoral college useless without modifying the Constitution is as follows:

California and any other state looking to reform the electoral college system would pass legislation allocating electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote, with the winner benefiting from any rounding. However, this law would not take effect unless states representing 75% or more of the US population also pass the same electoral college allocation rules.

I prefer allocation via popular vote rather than congressional district, because of the way congressional districts are / can be gerrymandered.

This type of legislation would provide for fair allocation of electoral college votes in proportion to the popular vote, but not give any party any short term advantage as the Republican plan would.

[David T]

The U.S. Constitution very specifically gives to the State *Legislatures* the power to determine how votes are allocated. I'm not a lawyer, but is it constitutionally legal for a state legislature to abdicate such a clearly defined responsibility to the kind of referrendum process that both the Democratic and Republican proposals for California electoral reform represent?

[Mitsu]

I can't believe how stupid people can be. Either every state should allocate its electoral college votes via winner takes all, or we go to proportional representation for every state. Obviously having one state (California) change the way it allocates votes to proportional and leaving all the others with winner takes all creates a gigantic, unfair advantage for Republicans.

The Democratic alternative is fair: the winner of the popular vote wins the Presidency. Clearly, this gives every voter a voice in the election, from every state. Changing California's system to proportional would virtually guarantee a Republican win in the electoral college regardless of what the will of the nation is. How ridiculous is that? Are people complete imbeciles? This is a naked power grab by Republicans, pure and simple.

[Elizabeth]

The answer is simple. Get rid of the electoral college. To weaken the winner take all in the bigger states and not to get rid of the rule in smaller states is a disingenuous power grab by those who think rural conservative values should predominate over more populous urban values.

I have a lot of respect for an Iowa farmer. My grandfather was one. But his vote should not count for more than mine. That would result in neither democracy nor a representative republic.

End of stroy.

[c-t-m]

While I absolutely agree with the concept of splitting the California electoral college, there is one pitfall to the language proposed by both sides of that could undermine not only their intentions, but democracy itself.

There is nothing to require electoral college representatives to vote as their designated congressional district/voting body requires them. In the last contested collection, we saw a pronounced campaign to get one or two EC voters to change their vote and "Vote with America" or "Vote with the popular vote". By narrowing the field of who each individual is responsible to, defections become a greater possibility. Just as an example, I live in Henry Waxman's district and if a Republican were to somehow win the majority in that area, I have no doubt that Waxman would still cast a vote for the Democrats, and he would exercise any tactic possible for any EC member to do the same.

I would much rather see a simple "majority wins" rule, but if we are to continue with the EC system, binding obligations must be codified.

[steve]

You can't do away with the electoral college, because to do so would require a constitutional amendment, which wont happen because too many small states get "over represented" by the current system. Attaching the state's electoral votes to the popular vote is, in my view, inconsistent with the federal nature of our government. Under the Democrat plan States would conceivably give their electoral votes to a candidate that their own State citizen voters did not elect. This is an egregious violation of representative government, in my opinion. The Republican plan is far more consistent with our constitutional values. Besides, be careful for which you wish for if you are a Democrat. The only reason the Democrats want the popular vote system is because of the mistaken assumption long held that more voter participation would necessarily mean a Democrat advantage. Bush beat Kerry in an election with relatively high turnout. Everytime turnout is high you hear pundits saying that Democrats are at an advantage. Thats not necessarily true. While the GOP does gain an advantage in states like New York and California, the Dems will gain an advantage in places like Florida, Ohio and Texas. So while the scales may tip towards the GOP now its not necessarily going to happen all the time.

[John]

A blatant political power grab in California by Republicans? You must be joking. The Electoral College is one of the few functional responses to succesfully combat gerrymandering.

I doubt many remember Proposition 77, an attempt to bring the issue to the voters to address blatant gerrymandering. It was removed from the ballot by Bill Lockyear, our Democratic Attorney General on a technicality.

Our Assembly, Senate, two Senators, Speaker of the House, most every other position other than Governor in Sacramento is currently controlled by Democrats.

Take a look at each of currently elected leader's websites and figure out how well your needs are represented.

My guess is they ain't, because your existing leaders no longer care about you. You're already in the their political bag and will be for years to come.

At some point you do need to support a political opposition just to keep your own boys honest.

From a registered Non-Partisan.

[investorguy]

Uh, folks. We don't have a Democracy. The US is a Federal Republic.

In a Democracy, all people vote on all things. In a Republic, the people elect representatives to represent the state and to vote on their behalf. That's why we have the Electoral College, and not direct elections.

[Jon]

The electoral college is an outdated method that was relevant when instantaneous communication was unavailable, and will always be prone to corruption. The popular vote should decide the presidency. And if the Republican party was pulling this stunt because of their concern for fair play, they'd be happy with this compromise.

[Ferris]

For this to work, ALL states would have to adopt the system of splitting the votes which the Republicans in California have suggested. However, as it stands, doing it only in California will simply loose Democratic votes without gaining any around the country. It's rigged to only help one party, not make it more representative across the board.

[c-t-m]

I wish I was shocked at what people on this board are saying. Reforming the Electoral College is NOT a Republican power grab, unless you consider Democracy to be a power grab. In the 2000 election, these same people were decrying Bush's victory in the process for this very reason. It just goes to show that the American (or at the very least, the Californian) Left is more concerned with their political agenda and not the process. Otherwise, how can you possibly explain such an effort to void and silence the non-Left-voting population?

The beauty of the American process is that even the ideological minority has a voice and can participate in the process. It is time to allow that to infuse into all aspects of the election process, but the Left is only concerned in giving voice to those who subscribe to their policies.

[Peter Parrott]

A word about process: STEVE is correct. The proper focus of this discussion is modifying the Constitution of the United States, regarding the Electoral College.. Our Founding Fathers intentionally made amending the Constitution VERY difficult. But, most of you will agree, the Constitution is one of the key sources of our strength.

I support the idea that it is probably time to amend the Electoral College.

Peter

[Paul]

We are united as a state and so therefore we should vote as a state, so I disapprove of any effort to split up California's electoral votes.

If the entire nation were to dissolve the electoral college system and go by the popular vote, I would support that. I will not support my state doing so independently, for it makes itself vulnerable to a whole new category of manipulation and corruption. As least the electoral college system is familiar to us, albeit out-of-date, and therefore more difficult to take advantage of than an unfamiliar process.

We could always just secede from the union and form our own country, to the dismay of the republican minority. Don't laugh too loud, it has been suggested before (tongue-in-cheek).

[Harold Tuchel]

PLEASE...remember how Republicans gerrymandered Texas. B y NOT going to a popular vote concept either party could jerk around the election. I might be an unsophisticated Iowa hick....but I don't believe an LA or Frisco vote should count more than mine....
The idea should be to make the election as FAIR as possible for everyone and the H with what the parties think. They are part of the problem!!!! NO they are a threat to democracy!

[Dave]

Yeah, which game are you playing, Andrew? The governor's response was measured and consistent.

(Ans: He was very measured and very consistently sounding like he would take either side and took neither, hence the headline. Better ask him about a game.-AM)

[Rick D]

I find it fascinating that the Republicans thought the old Electoral College system was perfectly fine when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. Now that it is becoming increasingly clear that in the 2008 election, these Republicans will not even be elected municipal dogcatcher, and by golly, here they are whining about the Electoral College system and lining up behind efforts to derail the mandate that voters sent to Washington in 2006, and will repeat even more loudly in 2008.

[david Slavin]

Get out there and vote dems against this reform measure. This is the typical Republican power grab. If this gets passed, we out here in the rest of America could get stuck with another lying mediocrity like that bum George Bush. We can't afford anymore Republican rule for the rest of this century.

[ddd]

The governor is absolutely right about not changing rules in the middle of a game. Sure, the electoral system is ridiculously outdated. A popular-vote system would surely work best. But no solution will work unless it is the same across the country. What if some states were to follow the results of the national popular vote while others continued to vote as a state? This would result in total electoral anarchy and, likely, manipulation.

As is surely the case now in California. The only ones who want this initiative to pass are Republicans. Why? Not because Republicans are particularly interested in electoral reform. No, it is obviously because they have much to gain by this in 2008 (at least 20 free electoral votes)!

This would not just simply sway the outcome of the national election. No, by doing so it would lead to another election of rancor and charges of fraud, further undermining the American Republic.

Let us hope that the governor of California will continue to see things this way and will not give in the party politics. This can only lead the country further down the road toward inner division and chaos.

(Ans: Reminder: What's up for discussion is putting the idea to a vote of the people. All the Governor can do is endorse or oppose it.)

[mark duncan]

Arnold is correct on changing ( or NOT changing," the Constitution..we need to stop wanting to change it for political reasons. our current administration has done enough damage to it, and it will take many years to restore.

[Michelle]

I don't have time to read all the previous posts, but to quote an earlier thought from New Yorker magazine (earlier this month): the current proposal would replace battleground states with battleground Congressional districts. Then, candidates would spend the majority of their time catering to an even smaller population! Candidates would not care about my district. At all.

[jeremy]

Let's not forget that we are a REPUBLIC, and not a true democracy. To make a change in the way electoral votes are counted in one state but not in all states creates significant potential problems in terms of fairness and consistency. If there is to be a change in the way the popular vote translates to the electoral college, that change should, as others have said, come in the form of a constitutional amendment. That, of course, would essentially federalize our elections, which creates potential problems of its own....

[Philip Moxi]

The proposal to divide CA's electoral votes by congressional district is yet another example of electoral gerrymandering to dilute the urban/minority/democratic vote. This is nothing but a ploy by Republicans to get votes in a state that they can't win state-wide. It would make it mathematically impossible for Democrats to win the White House, as all the other states are winner take all (except Maine and Nebraska). Why should CA unilaterally disarm when a GOP candidate will likely lose the cities of Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and Houston and still claim all of Texas' 32 electoral votes? It's a stupid idea borne of naked partisanship and a sore loser attitude. The GOP can't win if they play by the rules so they want to change the rules to rig the system for them to claim power. Any American who votes for this proposition on the notion of fairness is naive and an idiot.

[SK Duncan]

Of course the popular vote method would be the most democratic. The Soviet-style Electoral College has failed us. It is too prone to corruption, tampering and jury-rigging (ie 2000 elections). One person, one vote. You count all the votes. Whoever has the most votes, wins. A bold concept, who's time has come.

Smaller states must yield to the majority...either we all elect a president together or we can split the Union among cultural, religious and political/ ideological lines.

It is high time we become a true democracy and stop claiming we are.