HISTORY LESSION BY PROF KEYSAR
The winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes
-- which we now accept as normal and which awards all of a
state's electoral votes to the candidate who wins a majority
of the popular vote in the state -- was itself the product of
partisan maneuvers, put into place by politicians of different
parties, including our revered founding father and democratic
hero, Thomas Jefferson.
The Constitution drafted in Philadelphia in 1787 said (and says)
nothing about how a state should choose its electors or apportion
electoral votes. It leaves that decision to the legislature of each
state. Not surprisingly, when political leaders were first trying to
erect the institutions that the founding fathers had sketched on
paper in Philadelphia, different states adopted different methods
of choosing presidential electors. In some, the legislatures
appointed electors by themselves (without holding any popular
election); others developed a winner-take-all system in which
they held "general ticket" elections, granting the winning
candidate all of the state's electoral votes; still others allocated
the electors by district. Numerous states changed systems
from one election to the next.
The most progressive political thinking of the era favored the
district plan -- because it would most closely link the preferences
of voters to the selection of electors. As Jefferson observed,
"All agree that an election by districts would be best, if it could
be general."
Yet Jefferson proved more than willing to let partisan advantage
trump what "would be best." As the 1800 election approached,
his Republican supporters in Virginia, mindful that their opponents
in the Federalist Party had won five of the state's electoral votes
in 1796, replaced the district system with "winner take all"
-- thereby guaranteeing Jefferson all of Virginia's electoral votes.
(Massachusetts, the home of Jefferson's rival, John Adams,
retaliated by entrusting the selection of electors to the Federalist-
dominated legislature.) A few years later, Jefferson, as president,
backed away from supporting a constitutional amendment
mandating a district system throughout the nation -- a strategy
that would have eliminated the potential unfairness of having a
district approach in some states and the winner-take-all system
in others -- because "winner take all" appeared to be benefiting
his party.
Indeed, "winner take all" became, and endured as, the primary
method of choosing electors precisely because of partisan
dynamics. Regardless of the broader democratic principles at
stake, dominant parties in nearly all individual states had
embraced the short-run advantages of "winner take all" by
1830; since then, few states have had an appetite for dividing
up their electoral votes while everyone else was using "winner
take all" -- in part because doing so would appear to lessen the
state's clout in national politics. (Democrats in Michigan made
the change in the 1890s and were severely punished for their
pains after Republicans regained control of the state legislature.)
National efforts to impose a district plan (or a similar system
that would allocate electoral votes in proportion to the
distribution of the popular vote within a state) have occasionally
garnered widespread support (several times winning passage
through one branch of Congress), but, so far, partisan opponents
of such a change have successfully prevented such a
constitutional amendment from receiving the necessary
two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress.
All of which has left us with a winner-take-all system that was
never voted on or designed as a matter of national policy and
has numerous intrinsic defects (such as transforming presidential
elections into nonevents in the many states where candidates
don't bother to campaign because the outcome is not in doubt).
We are also left with a constitutional framework that remains
vulnerable to partisan machinations. That framework, created
by men of the 18th century who could barely imagine mass
political parties, permits the rules of the game to be changed
in midstream by any one state or any collection of states.
The largest states, of course, would be particularly inviting
targets.
_____________________
YOUR VOTE DOESN’T MATTER!
Senator Ray Haynes
At least not when it comes to electing the President.
Not when it is winner-take-all for California’s electoral votes.
You’re probably as fed up as I am about that – and now there is something
you can do about it.
It is time to Let Every Voice be Heard!
A petition is in circulation to put Electoral College Reform on the
ballot that will allocate our state’s votes by CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
– the winner in a district will get the one electoral vote for that district
– and the winner of the state-wide vote will get the remaining two votes
allocated by the US Constitution.
California’s votes will no longer ALL be controlled by the big city political
machines and the major market liberal media. California will become
competitive again. Presidential candidates will have to campaign for your
vote – in suburbs, small towns and rural areas - and your vote WILL matter.
If it passes, the reform will help stamp out corruption by making vote fraud
ineffective – those schemes would only affect one electoral vote in one district
– and not all 58 votes for the whole state.
It will virtually eliminate the chance of a repeat of the Florida debacle in
California in the event of a close vote – preventing both the uncertainty and
the anger and long-lasting animosity created by that dispute.
Of course, there is the chance minor parties may be able to win an electoral
vote or two – the Greens along the coast, the Libertarians in a foothill or
suburban district.
What is important is EVERYONE’S vote will matter and everyone will know it.
The social impact will mean less bitterness – resulting in more social and
political stability.
As you can imagine, that idea scares the ultra-left collectivists - they tried
to abort the initiative in its tracks by pulling out all the stops with their
multi-billionaire sugar-daddies, with their pals in the big city newspapers,
in academia, “think-tanks” and among their political hacks. You can read
about it and their premature gloating on-line in an article from the
San Francisco Chronicle. Oct. 7, 2007 Carl Marinucci, Lincoln Brigade
They even had the nerve to name their operation after an armed group of
American born Communists – and said their fight against letting YOUR vote
count was a vote against “FASCISM” – in their hateful outlook they are
equating YOU and YOUR beliefs with that odious ideology.
But despite their gloating, the initiative is very much alive. And we are
determined to keeping working to give you a voice.
Please return your petitions to our office as soon as possible – even if
you’ve only gathered a few signatures.
Just as important, of course, is your donation to help with the costs of
gathering signatures throughout the state.
The left-wing collectivist cabal has millions at its disposal to keep your
voice silent and your vote for President worthless. If we succeed in
getting the initiative on the ballot, they WILL spend millions to defeat it – even
THAT would be a victory for you and me because they won’t have that
money to spend on other political campaigns in California and across the
nation.
The GRASSROOTS effort behind this petition can succeed with YOUR
financial support and personal efforts. To fund the effort we need to raise
$450,000 – about only 1% of what they will have to spend to try to defeat
reform when it is on the ballot.
Every dollar you invest in the effort will, at least, cost THEM 100 times as
much.
A $100 contribution ties up $10,000 of theirs.
To raise the needed funds, we need just 50 donors to kick in $1,000;
another 200 to invest $500; 1000 to donate $100; 2000 to donate $50;
and $25 from another 4000 who can only afford that amount. Send in your
donation TODAY – there is no time to waste. We need to know you are
committed to this electoral reform.
Make YOUR voice heard again! Let EVERY voice be heard!
Senator Ray Haynes (ret), State Chairman
PS. Don’t let the big city political machines and the left-wing collectivist
keep your voice unheard and ineffective. Join the effort for electoral
reform by sending in a donation and by gathering signatures TODAY.
Whether it is $25 or $1,000 – it ALL matters.
Make out the check to Electoral Reform! FPPC-1301703
PPS: Remember, YOUR donation will cost the opponents of reform 100
times as much! Every dollar from you means they have $100 less to
spend on other state and national campaigns.
Copyright © 2006 Electoral Reform California. All Rights Reserved.
| | | |
Copyright © 2007 Electoral Reform California. All Rights Reserved.
| | | |
Copyright © 2006 Electoral Reform California. All Rights Reserved. 
The Electoral Reform California Initiative is alive and kicking! Those who wish that the fairy godmother would give them a gift are delusional. Some of the players have resigned and have been replaced. There is no change in the plan to have it on the June 3, 2008 ballot.
The Electoral Reform is really good idea.
It will force the candidates to campaign in California. They now ignore us.
Million of dollars will be spent in the state buying media time.
Los Angeles and San Francisco who control the State will no longer dominate.
47% of the people support the idea according to the Field Poll.
Arnold the Republican if he was running for President would win the 55 electors. Visit our website ElectoralReformCalifornia.com
|
Bush vs Kerry 2004 *******************************************************************************************