Californication

Well, I did say "let's all read Bob Herbert"... so perhaps the fact that I immediately am inspired to write proves that I was right. (Next up: in praise of homonyms!)

Herbert's column yesterday, on the mischievous California proposition to apportion electors by percentage of the vote in each congressional district was a reminder to me about being careful what you wish for; and Hebert's attempts to take it apart reminds me we all have the capacity to rewrite our principles. 

Basically, the proposal to apportion California's electors by vote percentage in each congressional district would guarantee that a Republican candidate would have a shot at electoral votes that would otherwise go to a Democrat; almost no one can make a credible case that California, with the most electoral votes, is going to do anything but go, statewide for the Democrat, whoever it may be.  It's likely, though, that in the "Inland Empire" Orange County and other traditionally Republican congressional districts, the Republican candidate would win the popular vote. Estimates, as Herbert notes, are that possibly 20 electoral votes would be in play. In a close election - which seems not out of the question - that could be the difference between winning and losing the White House.

So what's the problem? Opposing the proposition should be a no-brainer, I can see everyone saying, especially my Mom, Red, and good friend J. And I do hope that the proposition loses, should it go to a vote.  But Herbert's logic bugs me, not least of which because I've been persuaded by Democratic arguments in recent years that the Electoral College is an unnecessary, ancient way to take the Presidential election away from voters. There ought to be something, some way to better reflect the popular vote.  As it stands, a Republican in the northeast, and a Democrat in, say, Texas, could reasonably conclude that their vote is meaningless.

Herbert's opposed to the California proposition in large part because it's isolated:

A sign of the bad faith in this proposal is the fact that there is no similar effort by the G.O.P. to apportion electoral votes by Congressional districts in, for example, Texas, a state with 34 electoral votes that is likely to go Republican next year.

Fair enough... but why should we expect Republicans to propose this change where it would hurt? The way to address that, it seems to me would be for Democrats to pursue similar ballot initiatives in "safe" GOP states in the South and West.  Force Republicans to put up or shut up, as it were.  If they really think the California proposal is so good (and also legal, which is a separate issue), make them defend that logic in Texas, or Kansas, or Missouri (where real mischief could be done, given its fairly even divide of Democrats and Republicans).... or Colorado, where we already tried it. 

My point is that Herbert reflexively takes up the cudgel of opposing the California initiative mostly because it has the potential to benefit the GOP.  It's not the Electoral College isn't problematic - indeed, Herbert neatly sidesteps questions of racial imbalances that are exacerbated by the Electoral College, and other reasoned critiques of the current Presidential process; it's as if the California proposal sprung out of thin air, only because cynical Republicans want a special advantage.  And no doubt, they do.  But the reason the proposition may succeed - what Herbert defines as "not fully understood" - is the generalized sense, pushed by progressives, that something needs to change.

Democrats have tried, for a while, to tamp down the energy to change electoral process at the state level precisely because they know that uneven adoption could easily damage our prospects, more than Republicans. But as with many things these days, it seems to me confidence is key here, and I'm confident that a) we're right that a more proportional electoral college could improve our elections, and b) that we have the right people with the right positions to win elections.

Herbert faults the GOP for having to do an end run around the Electoral College for fear of losing; but the reason for that fear is clear: they are looking at election disaster next year, and they know it.  Even if some percentage of California goes into play, that may well be not nearly enough to fix losses of stalwart GOP states in the South (Florida, Virginia, even North Carolina, the best argument for John Edwards candidacy), and the West (Arizona, Colorado, Montana) and even elsewhere (Ohio is in play, and Missouri is key). If Democrats feel that we can't win with a bifurcated California, or proportional voting generally, the problem isn't this proposition... and if we can't say, confidently, "bring it on", when so much with the GOP is so wrong, then we probably should just give up now. I'm not going to.  How about you?

On a related note, if you got this far... Go check out yesterday's even better column from Gail Collins, which had me in tears. My happiest moments without Times Select come from being able to share Collins widely.  She's amazing.

Comments

[Leigh]

You shouldn't assume that I'm so polarized politically. Haven't I bitched about our 2 party system at length, and about pp who assume that the "right" or the GOP are like heartless androids (or whatever they think)? I studied proportional representation in college (even wrote an unpublished journal article about it - my first!) and think it's a system we could certainly use in this country.