Electoral Unfairness

I have long felt that my vote in Presidential elections was, for all practical purposes, completely useless – the Democrats inevitably win because they have a large majority in any statewide race, and California (like most states) has a winner-takes-all rule for its electoral votes. It's not that I'm a Republican, mind you – but it's hard to imagine any Democrat that I'd vote for winning the primary…

That winner-takes-all rule is the source of what is essentially the disenfranchisement (in California, for Presidential elections) of anyone who is not a Democrat. It seems quite unfair to me that the roughly 45% of the voters in California who normally vote for some candidate other than the Democrat have no influence on the election at all.

The winner-takes-all rule is not imposed by any Federal constraint – the individual states are completely free to allocate those electoral votes any way they see fit. Last month, a well-known attorney (GOP Thomas Hiltachk) filed the papers to begin the initiative process to change the winner-takes-all rule to one that instead allocates two electoral college votes to the winner in each congressional district, plus two more for the statewide winner. In the 2004 election, had that been in place, George Bush would have received 22 electoral votes from California, instead of zero. And my vote would have actually meant something, as I could have contributed to a win against John Kerry in my congressional district (which leans slightly Republican).

Hiltachk's proposal still isn't completely “fair” (where proportional votes would be completely fair) – but it's a huge step in that direction. It's also completely within the spirit and intent of the electoral college system, unlike some other proposals being bandied about. I like the idea, and I think it is a much fairer system than the winner-takes-all system we have in almost every state today. I'd support it, and I say this without even knowing if Democrats or Republicans have an advantage if this were implemented in other states. California's unique initiative system probably makes it easier to get the ball rolling here than in any other state, and here the Republicans would be the clear winner. In many other states, such a change would deliver an advantage to the Democrats, and I have no idea how it would balance out nationwide.

But who cares? I want my vote to matter!

I suspect there's going to be one hell of a fight over this California initiative, with money pouring in from all over the country, both for and against. Hiltachk has an impressive record with initiatives – he's the guy who started the recall effort that pitched Governor Gray Davis out of office four years ago. If this initiative were crafted and timed such that it would be effective for the 2008 election, then both Democrats and Republicans would see this as quite likely to tilt the playing field significantly in the Republican's direction – 22 electoral votes ain't chickenfeed; it could easily be enough to swing the election. So both sides will have a large incentive to influence the initiative vote – and there are no limits on spending for initiatives…

More information from the Sacremento Bee.