Survey USA: California may very well split its electoral votes

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes: 47%
NO:  35%
unsure 19%

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=b54d1007-5528-4fb6-82e8-ec4c64fb7732

Unlikely to appear on June ballot initiative, likely to appear in November, 2008

https://uselectionatlas.org/NEWS/index.php

[agcatter]

I didn't like it when Democrats tried to pull this in red NC and I don't like it when Republicans pull it in blue state California.  It's an effort to gain a partisan advantage in the electoral race to 270.  Where does it stop?

[Floridude]

I agree.  Messing with the equality of the democratic process state-by-state isn't right, no matter which party does it.  Either do it for all states, or for none.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Good for the Republicans, bad for the Democrats.

[agcatter]

Republicans getting 20 out of the 52 electors from California would be equal to the Republican candidate carrying Pennsylvania.

[Padfoot]

I wouldn't be that opposed to this if California wasn't one of the most gerrymandered states in the country.  In fact, I'd favor a nationwide district method if there were a sure fire way of creating fair congressional districts nationwide.

[Хahar 🤔]

I wouldn't be that opposed to this if California wasn't one of the most gerrymandered states in the country.  In fact, I'd favor a nationwide district method if there were a sure fire way of creating fair congressional districts nationwide.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Yup. THe GOP could afford to lose Ohio and still have a chance at winning the election with 20 EVs from California.

[Erc]

Believe me, the Democrats will be spending money on this like mad and it'll go down in flames, thankfully.  (Of course, it gets them to spend money in CA, which is always a good thing, I suppose)

Especially if it's on the ballot in November, where it'll seem like even more of a Republican trick to get votes (compare a similar initiative in CO in 2004 which failed miserably).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"Should California's 55 electoral college votes continue to all go to the winner? Should the system be changed so that California's Electoral College votes are divided among the candidates for president based on the percent of the popular vote each receives? Or, are you not sure?"

That's not what the ballot initiative is. And the wording is very notable. Of course many Democrats are going to say yes to this, does that mean they'll vote for it? No. I remember the Colorado initiative polled a lot better than it did.

[Padfoot]

If California Republicans want more EVs then San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties should just break off to form their own state.  If such a state were to form it would be larger in population than Michigan and would likely have about 17 electoral votes.  I'd actually be very much in favor of such a move too because California is far to large anyways.

[bullmoose88]

I supported the Colorado intiative, I supported the North Carolina plan, and I support this...and in every other state that may consider such a plan.

[Angel of Death]

I wouldn't be that opposed to this if California wasn't one of the most gerrymandered states in the country.  In fact, I'd favor a nationwide district method if there were a sure fire way of creating fair congressional districts nationwide.

You mean like this?

[Padfoot]

I wouldn't be that opposed to this if California wasn't one of the most gerrymandered states in the country.  In fact, I'd favor a nationwide district method if there were a sure fire way of creating fair congressional districts nationwide.

You mean like this?

I've seen similar (if not the same) thing proposed before and I am disinclined to put it in action.  In several states you end up with strange slivers such as this one in Ohio stretching from the western edge of Cincinnati up to Springfield:



Also, as the mapmakers themselves note, sometimes a state has a highly concentrated population near a central line which creates odd shaped districts.  The mapmakers use this crazy looking map of Colorado as an example:



Thus, I think that a mathematical method of creating the smallest possible district would be far superior to the splitline method.  The would create more compact districts and avoid the splitting problem in Colorado.  Also, I think that some man made boundaries should be considered important, such as voting precincts.  It seems ridiculous to me that people within the same voting precinct would be voting for two different members of congress.

[Everett]

I might favour specifying a minimum ratio between the area and perimeter of each district using the isoperimetric inequality to combat gerrymandering. And even if that proves ineffective, there are so many other effective algorithms. Of course, as long as people want gerrymandering or are at least willing to turn a blind eye, it will keep happening. And it is a disgusting practice that, political implications aside, also happens to result in spectacularly ugly district shapes. I certainly don't care which party does this; gerrymandering should not be tolerated, period.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Ever since 2000, where the Democratic process on elections didn't work, both parties have tried to use the proportional voting mechanism to their advantage like we saw in 2004 with CO and now we are seeing this in CA.  I believe no matter if it qualifies, I think it will fail.  However, when redistricting happens in 2010 when proportional voting should mean something, I think this will be the perfect time to call a ratifying convention to change the constitution to proportional voting and get rid of this electoral college. Or we will be facing these ballot initiatives for the foreseeable future.

[Trilobyte]

Looks like the initiative is dead (again), at least for the June ballot:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/it-was-on-then.html

[12th Doctor]

I wouldn't be that opposed to this if California wasn't one of the most gerrymandered states in the country.  In fact, I'd favor a nationwide district method if there were a sure fire way of creating fair congressional districts nationwide.

You mean like this?

I've seen similar (if not the same) thing proposed before and I am disinclined to put it in action.  In several states you end up with strange slivers such as this one in Ohio stretching from the western edge of Cincinnati up to Springfield:



Also, as the mapmakers themselves note, sometimes a state has a highly concentrated population near a central line which creates odd shaped districts.  The mapmakers use this crazy looking map of Colorado as an example:



Thus, I think that a mathematical method of creating the smallest possible district would be far superior to the splitline method.  The would create more compact districts and avoid the splitting problem in Colorado.  Also, I think that some man made boundaries should be considered important, such as voting precincts.  It seems ridiculous to me that people within the same voting precinct would be voting for two different members of congress.

There is also the fact that some gerrymandering is acctually a good thing.  When you are dealing with a city, or a regional that had a common identity, it makes more sense to keep it in one district.

[12th Doctor]

Also, those maps seem to contain a bias of their own, now that I look at it, in that they often times split large cities into several different congressional districts, which in its self could have the effect of making several district lean strongly towards the Democrats.  I don't think that creating 3 districts that are strongly Dem in the place of 1 district that is strongly Dem, one the leans Dem and one that leans Republican is "fair" (this is the case with Pittsburgh in this system).

Plus, they don't seem to understand that Southern States are required by law to make those black majority districts that are so badly gerrymandered.