|
It is transparent partisan crap to award California's electoral votes by congressional district while letting Texas and other award their red votes winner-take-all. But it would still be a problem even this method were adopted by all states.
First of all, it doesn't solve the problem of all votes being equal. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the 40% of Californians who will vote GOP in 2008 but not get a single electoral vote (note that I am quite confident that the ballot proposal will fail miserably in June). But in a system that awards electors by congressional district, my progressive vote will be lost because I live in a heavily gerrymandered GOP district.
Secondly, and most importantly, it doesn't solve the problem of the Electoral College itself. It's true that if all states adopted the congressional district method the state-by-state results would more closely reflect the electoral votes within the respective states, but the popular will would still be thwarted. That's because all states get a number of electoral votes equal to the number of their congressional districts PLUS TWO!
This grotesquely favors the small states, whose "bonus points" often equal or exceed their number of congressional districts. On benign, magnanimous days I can kinda, sorta see an argument for unequal representation in one house of congress, but not for the selection of the president.
The only way to ensure one-person-one-vote representation is to eliminate the Electoral College entirely and choose the president by popular vote. Since that would require a constitutional amendment and therefore be virtually impossible, I support the proposed agreement between the states totalling 270 electors mentioned above by DC_DUX. By the way, that proposal will be on the same California ballot as the dirty tricks GOP proposal.
|