Media Matters: California would still be mostly ignored by presidential candidates even if electoral votes were awarded by district
Summary: Reporting on a Republican-backed California ballot initiative that would award the state's electoral votes by congressional district, NPR correspondent Ina Jaffe aired an audio clip of Republican consultant Dave Gilliard, who asserted:"We want [presidential candidates] to come out here and actually campaign throughout California. We want them to go to the Central Valley, and Inland Empire, and the North Coast, and talk to Californians about what's important to California." In fact, California has only three congressional districts that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) or President Bush carried by 5 percentage points or less during the 2004 election, and thus, if the initiative passed, campaigns would presumably have little incentive"to come out here and actually campaign." Further, Jaffe's report did not note one of the major arguments made in opposition to the California initiative -- that it reapportions the electoral votes of only California, rather than applying a nationwide standard for the distribution of electoral votes.
On the November 26 edition of National Public Radio's (NPR) Morning Edition, reporting on a controversial Republican-backed California ballot initiative that would award the state's electoral votes by congressional district, correspondent Ina Jaffe stated:"In the past four presidential elections, California has become reliably Democratic, so presidential candidates usually come here just to raise money and that's about it." Jaffe then aired an audio clip of Republican consultant Dave Gilliard, who is managing the campaign to get the proposal on the ballot, asserting:"We want them to come out here and actually campaign throughout California. We want them to go to the Central Valley, and Inland Empire, and the North Coast, and talk to Californians about what's important to California." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, California has only three congressional districts that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) or President Bush carried by 5 percentage points or less during the 2004 presidential election, and thus, if the initiative passed, campaigns would presumably have little incentive"to come out here and actually campaign," as Gilliard claimed. Further, Jaffe's report did not note one of the major arguments made in opposition to the California initiative -- that it reapportions the electoral votes of only California, rather than applying a nationwide standard for the distribution of electoral votes.
According to a Media Matters analysis of data from the Almanac of American Politics, published by the nonpartisan National Journal Group, only three California congressional districts were carried by 5 percentage points or less in 2004, providing presidential candidates little reason to campaign throughout the state if electors were chosen by district rather than statewide. Contrary to the claim made by Gilliard, it would thus make little sense for a presidential candidate"to come out here" to a state offering as few potentially competitive electoral votes as Wyoming or Delaware, instead of campaigning in"swing" states such as Ohio (20 electoral votes) or Florida (27 electoral votes).
Indeed, as San Francisco Chronicle editorial page editor John Diaz wrote in a September 9 column:
So clear is the partisan bent of these districts -- by design, with the assistance of sophisticated computer modeling -- that it's hard to imagine that more than a few would truly be up for grabs in any presidential election.
In reality, if California were to apportion electors by congressional district, its current prize of 55 electoral votes suddenly would be diminished to a competition for perhaps five electors (equivalent to Idaho or West Virginia) at the most.
Further, as Media Matters has previously noted, under the GOP plan, California voters would actually have less influence on the outcome of national elections, not more, as Gilliard suggested. Under the state's current winner-take-all system, California awards 55 electoral votes to its winner, far more than any other state. Under the GOP plan, it would be essentially impossible for the winner of California to gain 55 electoral votes. Indeed, if this plan had been in effect in 2004, California would have awarded Kerry 33 electoral votes and Bush 22 votes. Rather than providing a margin of 55 electoral votes to its winner, California would have provided an 11-vote margin -- reducing California's clout to that of Indiana.
Jaffe's report also did not mention another key point made in opposition to the initiative. As Alexander Keyssar, a professor of history and social policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, noted in an October 28 Los Angeles Timesop-ed, Republicans have not sought a nationwide reform of the electoral college system, but rather have"introduce[d] such plans piecemeal in states where they would benefit":
If the Republicans truly believe that it would be fairer and more democratic to choose electors by district, then instead of introducing such plans piecemeal in states where they would benefit, they should introduce a constitutional amendment to create a national district system -- one that would apply to Texas and South Carolina as well as California. And if the Democrats truly want to prevent procedural"power grabs," they should sign on to such a proposal -- or offer a"proportional plan" or (better yet) actively back a national popular election that would eliminate the electoral college altogether.
If both parties worked together on such legislation, jointly committing themselves to remedy a design flaw in our Constitution, they might even succeed in dissipating a bit of the cynicism that the electorate so frequently expresses about political parties that seem far more interested in their own welfare than the fate of the nation.
Indeed, California Democrats have proposed two ballot initiatives (here and here) that would enter the state into a"voting compact" with other states requiring members to award their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote if"states cumulatively possessing a majority of electoral votes have enacted this agreement in substantially the same form."