California: Debate over Winner-Take-All
posted by on 10/30/07
While doing some research today, I came across an interesting fact: in the process of electing a new president, only two states, Maine and Nebraska, assign electoral votes by congressional district. Every other state has a winner-take-all system. Upon looking into this a little deeper, a ran across a very recent yet concealed and heated topic concerning California’s method of electoral votes. Democrats vehemently oppose the initiative by claiming it as partisan and trickery. However Republicans attest to creating a more accurate way of reflecting the votes of Californians.
This article gives detail on the development as well as the pros and cons of the proposed legislation. And here is a recent update. I like this post on the subject.
I do not know the intentions on either side, but I do believe that whatever is decided should reflect the votes of the people. With California now generating nearly one fifth of the entire electoral college needed to win, it seems as though something needs to be changed. As the 2008 elections may very well hinge on this decision, we must seek God’s perspective on the issue by making it a matter of fervent prayer.
The important thing is that each state decide for itself what voting system to have in its own electoral college. We definitely don’t want the Federal Government mandating yet more laws that are obviously not under its Constitutional jurisdiction.
Wow I don’t know what to think. If winner-take-all policies were partisan in the first place then the resurrection of the issue could mean a lot more partisan discord for a long time to come. That’s amazing that Maine and Nebraska held to their own that long. It seems that the states ought to be able to agree on a general principle as a whole rather than “just for California” but I agree with Robert: It’s California’s decision now and it will be interesting to see what they, as Californians, decide. “49 percent of California’s voters would like to see a change in the way the electoral votes are allocated . . .”–Hmm. It still sounds like a house divided. Why Washington appointed Madison and Jefferson to work together I will probably never fully understand. It reminds me of Isaac and Ishmael, if I dare say.
I can understand why 49% of Californians would like for their votes to count in the election! It is definitely not the Federal Government’s jurisdiction to mandate which way it is done. The winner-takes-all method makes California an extremely important state in an election, but what good is that if nearly half of the voters are ignored? Perhaps all states should choose electors by district, but if two thirds or more of the general vote in that state goes to a single candidate, the winner takes all. Would that be a decent non-partisan balance?
Good idea. That has precedence in Congress.