The outcome of the presidential election in California could be decided as early as June 2008. Well, sort of. Some Republicans are proposing a plan that could change the way in which the state’s electoral votes are allocated. If they are successful, the proposal will appear on California’s June ballot.

Supporters of the plan claim that it would promote more equitable voting in California. Their proposal would replace the state’s winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes with a system similar to that found in Maine and Nebraska. Two of California’s votes would be treated as “at-large” votes and given to the winner of the election in the state. The remaining votes would be distributed on a district-by-district basis to the candidate winning the most votes in each congressional district.

Plan proponents argue that the new system would reflect the diversity of opinion in California. Of course, they would also reap benefits in the presidential election when twenty or more electoral votes swing toward the Republican candidate. Surely they are motivated as much by the political ramifications as the philosophical ones.

These Republicans should stop, take a deep breath, and remember that political dynamics change in any given presidential election year. The political benefits they seek will be temporary. From a philosophical perspective, the plan they propose could have many unintended—and permanent—side effects. Conservatives should oppose this plan, even if it means that Hillary obtains more electoral votes in 2008.

In a perfect world, a district-by-district allocation of electoral votes could be a good idea. One of the great benefits of America’s presidential election system is that it encourages national coalition-building. Presidential candidates are successful when they avoid focusing too exclusively on one region, state, or special interest group. They must instead appeal to Americans from a variety of backgrounds. A district-by-district allocation of votes could do even more to work toward this goal. Unfortunately, the plan has at least two serious flaws.

First, the primary incentive created by the district plan is an increased motivation to draw congressional boundaries in such a way as to benefit one political party. Congressional districts are already seriously gerrymandered today, when the outcome of only congressional elections hangs in the balance. Imagine the ferocity that would accompany redistricting battles every ten years if presidential elections also turned on where these boundaries lie. The problem would become more widespread if other states follow California’s example and adopt a district-by-district allocation within their own boundaries. The winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes has at least one distinct advantage: It relies upon permanent state boundaries, rather than ever-changing congressional ones.

The district plan has a second shortcoming that should make conservatives think twice: The plan would promote increased federal involvement in issues that should be purely local. For those who care about federalist principles, this could be a real disaster. Many conservatives already complain that presidential candidates spend too much time on matters of state, rather than national, concern. The new system would magnify this problem, motivating candidates to focus on city and county issues, at least in California. If the district plan were to be enacted at the national level, the problem would be exacerbated still more. Voters who once complained that presidential candidates spend too much time in “swing states” would find themselves complaining of the inordinate focus on “swing districts.”

It’s always tempting to look to short-term, political gain when evaluating the advisability of certain policy proposals. Republicans would undoubtedly benefit from a district-by-district allocation of electoral votes in California, at least in 2008. But the wiser course of action is to evaluate the long-term impacts of the measure that has been proposed. The Republican plan fails this test. It should be opposed by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Comments (1)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment