..........
Visit our sister site
ExileStreet
home to conservatives
in arts and entertainment

Somewhere between
Hollywood and Vine
lies ExileStreet
In Residence:
Julia Gorin
Burt Prelutsky
Steve Finefrock
Patrick Hurley
Ralph Peters
Bruce Thornton
..........

Julia Gorin

Clintonisms
by Julia Gorin
..........

Wounded Warrior
Please Help Those
Who Protect Us

Burt Prelutsky

The Secret of Their
Success
by Burt Prelutsky

Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco
by Burt Prelutsky
.........

America Alone
by Mark Steyn
..........

The CRO Store
..........

..........

Thousand Oaks

Failure To Launch... by Tom McClintock [politician] 10/4/07

A Republican effort to apportion California’s electoral votes by congressional district looks like it is faltering, and that’s a very good thing.  The proposal is a classic example of the cynicism, defeatism and short-sightedness of many who are misguiding the GOP today.

Giving up on ever regaining a Republican majority in California, some party leaders apparently decided it would be clever to change the apportionment of the state’s electoral votes from its traditional winner-take-all rule to a process that assigns 53 of California’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district.  Instead of the Democrat nominee automatically taking all 55 votes, the Republican could take 20 or so votes.  What’s not to like?

Here’s what’s not to like.  Congressional and legislative districts are apportioned not by voters or citizens, but by population – weighting the vote heavily toward urban districts with high concentrations of ineligible voters.  For example, in the 2004 Presidential election, 109,000 votes were cast in Loretta Sanchez’ heavily Democratic 47th Congressional District race, while more than twice that number, 277,000, were cast in Dana Rohrbacher’s  Republican 46th Congressional District.  Just 66,000 voters put Sanchez in Congress; 171,000 voted for Rohrbacher.

A voter in Sanchez’ district has more than twice the weight as a voter in Rohrbacher’s – in a congressional race.  In a statewide race, however, every vote has exactly the same weight.  That’s why Republicans have had far more success over the last 30 years in electing Republican governors than Republican legislatures.

So why in the world would Republicans want to replicate this heavy Democratic skew in presidential races?

True, if ONLY California did this it would mean a few more electoral votes for the Republican candidate WHEN the state went Democratic.  But if every state followed suit, the election of a Republican president would become much more difficult.

And there’s one other thing to consider: the Democrats only have carried California since GOP presidential candidates stopped contesting the state in 1992.  True, in 2004, George W. Bush would have received 20 of California’s 55 electoral votes (assuming the presidential vote mirrored the congressional vote).  But in Republican years it works more dramatically against Republicans: even though George H. W. Bush carried California in 1988, Dukakis would have snatched 27 of California’s (then) 47 electoral votes – a substantial majority – had this rule been in effect then.

Fortunately for the Republican rocket scientists who dreamed this one up, the Democrats’ knee-jerk opposition may have saved them from themselves.  Now, hopefully, they will turn their attention to actually contesting California again in an open battle of ideas, rather than relying on too-clever-by-half political schemes.   CRO

§