There is an effort underway by conservatives to split up California's electoral votes. This would dilute the power of California to have a say in who becomes president and it would give an unfair advantage to Republicans.
The Courage Campaign has launched a Campaign against this effort called "No Dirty Tricks". Republicans have been finding ways to cheat for years. The time has come for us to let them know that we're going to stand up.
Please consider chipping in $20 to save 20 electoral votes from being stolen by Republicans.
Below, Rick Jacobs, Chair of the Courage Campaign explains the importance of this effort.
Follow Lane Hudson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tlanehudson
The problem with that is that there is no consensus on what should become the new "Alta California" as it has been referred.
Politically, Southern California would fight any secession because it would be left without most of its water.
Some people who want "Alta California" want it to be a right-wing rural state that leaves the San Francisco Bay Area in Southern California, which would make them go nuts. A Northern California that simply put's the northern boundaries of San Luis Obispo, Kern, and San Bernadino Counties, would make it even more the "left coast", which upsets rural areas of Northern California.
California could be split into three states, Northern, Central and Southern California.
The biggest change in California is that the political divisions are no longer Northern vs. Southern California. It's Coastal versus Inland California. The more populous coastal areas vote Democratic and it's more rural and ex-urban inland areas are becoming more conservative. In that sense, California is becoming more like it's left-coast bretheren of Oregon and Washington States. A more populous Coastal half outvotes the more conservative less populous inland half.
It's politically impossible, but I think California could be 10 states of 4 million each. Combining less populous states together and dividing more populous states will allow for more urban representation in the Senate and more fair representation overall. Do we really need two Dakotas? (I'm sure some poster will explain why we do and how they are different.)
California's problem also is that is has a legislature for a small state with only 80 assembly members for 30 million people. The whole legislative structure here needs to be reborn. Perhaps a unicameral proportionally elected legislature of 200 members or something. California needs a Constitutional Convention. But that's for a whole another blog I guess.
Actually, it is not a bad idea if all states were forced to do it because it would make the electoral vote closer to the popular vote. But it is inherently unfair if only some states do it.
On another issue, it is time that California should consider breaking into two states because it is getting so populous that it is becoming ungovernable.
Not a big point but two smaller states already do this, so Cali wouldn't be the only one.
As for an abandonment of the electoral college altogether and the creation of a national popular vote would be a bad idea, IMHO.
I think the electoral college is a key element in the balance of powers between the large and small states. Just like the Senate. If we abandon it, we might as well stop calling our system of govenment Federal and declare it Unitary.
Less populous states already get widely disproportionate power, influence and representation in the U.S. Senate, and would still continue to do so if and when the Electoral College is eliminated.
Eliminating the Electoral College isn't about the "states". It's about equality of citizenship.
If conservatives are worried that Presidential candidates might actually campaign in the Los Angeles, Dallas, New York, Chicago metropolitan reasons, a.k.a., where the American people actually live, instead of campaigning on the merits of selling ethanol in Podunksville, Iowa, that's just too damn bad for conservatives.
We haven't been a rural nation in over 100 years and we shouldn't have our 21st Century elections distorted by a mistake that was created in the 19th Century to preserve the power and influence of "slave" states.
First, it hasn't made the ballot yet. No major sponsor has stepped up to the plate to put up the cash to finance the signature gatherers. It'll take a few million for that.
Second, there is about a 8-9 point Democratic voter registration advantage. The Independent vote is also against this one by substantial margins.
Third, all the major Dems in the state have come out against this one already. DiFi, Boxer, Jerry Brown, are leading the pack against it. Even Arnold has kept quiet about it and is probably unlikely to go for it.
Fourth, once the advertising against it gets really going, assuming it makes it to the ballot, this thing is finished. TV is the only way to make or break initiatives out here and again, the Dems and Independents are against it. The last Dem candidate for governor, Steve Westly spent $37 million in the primary -- and lost.
Fifth, despite the illusion of being airheads, Californians generally get it right. This GOP division by gerrymandered district is inherently unfair. A candidate could win the most electoral votes, yet still be behind in the popular vote. It merely trades one bad system for another.
It's not going to happen.
North California and South California.
signed,
future North California resident
Turnout was depressed in states such as Texas, southern and mountain west states that Bush was sure to win because voting did not seem important. At the same time Democratic voter turnout increased in competitive states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Under a popular vote system, the campaigns would have been run differently by both candidates and who knows what would have happened.
If ALL states simultaneously went to a system of electoral votes proportional to the popular vote AND also were given a number of electoral votes proportional to their population size only, that would be a step toward fairness. Doing the first part of that in only one state is not.
Of course, if the GOP would agree to having a few other states do the same thing for this election, say Indiana, Virginia, Georgia, Ohio, and Florida ... Oh, and Texas.
This initiative is not a "dirty trick." Its an option. Not unlike recalling Gov. Davis. California can vote for it, or against it. Let the citizens decide, not the political parties.
No, I think that's the only way it's likely to happen. I'd like nothing better than a mass nonpartisan movement that resulted in a constitutional amendment giving us popular vote election of the President. Unfortunately, now and for the foreseeable future, political change is in the hands of the two dominate parties.
I suppose the initiative isn't a "dirty trick" in the sense that it isn't illegal, but it does seem to me that having California and only California do this at the current time violates the sense of fairness that most of us think is basic to our system. (Our faith is being eroded pretty badly by political game-playing like this. When our faith is gone, so will be the United States of America.)
Are you claiming that it is not the Republican Party that originated and is pushing this initiative?
in other words, California should only do this if every other heavily populated state does this.