With support from the University of Richmond

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.

John J. Pitney, Jr.: Electoral College Reform ... Lessons From California

[John J. Pitney, Jr., is the Roy P. Crocker Professor of American Politics at Claremont McKenna College, in Claremont, California. He received his B.A. from Union College and his Ph.D. from Yale. He has been a New York State Senate Legislative Fellow, a Congressional Fellow, and deputy director of research at the Republican National Committee. He has written articles for National Review Online, The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times, among others. His scholarly works include The Art of Political Warfare, published in 2000 by the University of Oklahoma Press.]

An effort to change California’s method of allocating electoral college votes has collapsed. Shortly after sponsors began gathering signatures for a ballot measure (called the Presidential Election Reform Act) to adopt a district system, the major players suddenly quit. “The levels of support just weren’t there,” a fundraiser told the San Francisco Chronicle. Some Republicans have muttered about reviving the effort, but few take the talk seriously.

California has been trending Democratic since the 1980s. The current winner-take-all system means that the Democratic nominee can usually count on the state’s 55 electoral votes. Under the now-defunct measure, candidates would have gotten one electoral vote for each California congressional district that they carried. (The statewide winner would have an additional two votes.) A Republican could thus win 20 or more electoral votes in California even if the Democrat won the state.

Democrats saw the measure as a threat, citing a Field Poll showing it with 47 percent support. They need not have worried. When a California ballot measure starts with less than a majority, strong opposition can usually beat it. And California Democrats enjoy a big edge in finance, organization, and morale. In this case, they were able to mount a fierce media counterattack before the campaign even started. “We ran it like a military operation,” one operative told the San Francisco Chronicle. “You had this SWAT team of talented, hyper-engaged people. … It was: boom, boom, boom.”

In a triumphant email yesterday, noted Democratic activist Bob Mulholland claimed that a new private poll put the numbers at 25% yes and 48% no.

In any event, the measure would have been a much stronger money magnet for Democrats than for Republicans. The Democrats were angry about the measure, and anger is a powerful tool for political fundraising.

Had the measure remained alive, Democrats would have focused their fire on Peter Singer, a New York billionaire who had provided much of the seed money. Singer backs Rudy Giuliani, so they could have portrayed the measure as a Giuliani plot.

Also, it might have backfired in November. If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, he might have an outside chance of carrying the state. But under the district plan, he would still lose dozens of California electoral votes.

Reforms of the electoral process have often disappointed partisan hopes. Democrats thought that the 18-year-old-vote would sweep Nixon out of the White House. Instead, he carried 49 states. They had great expectations for the “motor voter” law in the 1990s, but the GOP kept control of Congress. In the first election after the latest campaign finance law, President Bush beat Senator Kerry.

Ironically, the early demise of the electoral college initiative is probably good news for the GOP.
Read entire article at Britannica Blog