As I wrote last week, California Republicans are trying to fix the 2008 election by altering the way California allots its 55 electoral votes. The initiative that's been submitted for the June 2008 ballot, if passed by voters, would guarantee the Republican nominee 20 or so of California's electoral votes, the equivalent of Ohio. The New York Times op ed page (behind firewall) weighs in today and calls the scheme what it is: a Republican dirty trick.
The initiative, backed by a shadowy group called Californians for Equal Representation, is being promoted as an effort to more accurately reflect the choices of the state’s voters, and to force candidates to pay more attention to California, which is usually not in play in presidential elections. It is actually a power grab on behalf of Republicans. [...]On Friday I wrote about the Democratic pushback campaign against this power grab. That escalated yesterday when Democrats announced their own competing ballot initiative, which, if passed, would instead allot California's electoral votes to the national popular vote winner (as opposed to the California popular vote winner as is currently the practice.) So far, only Maryland is officially on board with this system, which would go into effect once states with 270 electoral votes among them (i.e. a majority of electoral votes) ratify it. (There is still a question as to whether the method by which California apportions its electoral votes can be determined by voters as opposed to the legislature but in the absence of a definitive ruling, we have to consider this power grab a real threat.)If voters understand that the initiative is essentially an elaborate dirty trick posing as reform, they are likely to vote against it. But judging by the misleading name of their organization, the initiative’s backers want to fool the public into thinking the change would make elections more fair. They are planning on putting it to a vote in June 2008, an election when there will be few other things on the ballot, and turnout is expected to be extremely low. [...]
If the initiative passes, it would do serious damage to American democracy.
Check out the local perspective over at Calitics here and here.
As if that weren't enough, yesterday also saw the first release of polling on the Republican-backed initiative, which shows that while it looks OK to people at first glance, the more people hear about what a brazen scheme it really is, the more they dislike it. The well-respected California Field Poll (pdf) found that Californians support the measure 47% to 35% when they are just read the title, but once they hear an explanation of the measure's purpose, the margin of support drops to 7 points, 49% to 42%. This is all good news for the proposition's opponents for, as Julia at calitics writes:
To actually be viable for passage at this stage of the game, an initiative in California needs to be polling at least in the mid-fifties. Support for initiatives tends to degrade over time. That is compounded by the tendency for voters who are not sure about the measure to vote against it. The status quo for these voters is better than supporting something they are not confident about. This initiative is in real trouble and it is not helped much when voters learn more about it.In addition, Rasmussen polled nationally and found:
In a theoretical sense, 45% of voters nationwide think that’s a good idea. Thirty percent (30%) disagree while 25% are not sure. However, even that tepid level of support dissipates when voters learn that a change in California could significantly increase the number of Republican Electoral Votes. Once that is factored into the equation, support drops to 31% and opposition increases to 43%.The lack of enthusiasm among voters at this early stage won't stop our pushback against the measure, of course, and you can do your part by signing the Courage Campaign's petition opposing it. We can't count out California Republicans when it comes to selling an outlandish scheme, nor can we count on the courts to uphold common sense and fair election results.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 8 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
