NC Almost Stepped Into Some Serious Electoral Doo Doo
What looked like a great idea for NC turned out to be a bad idea for our nation. While NC was about to pass a law to distribute electoral votes by congressional district, (which they thought would help Dems), California was considering doing the same (which would help Republicans).
’08 Landscape in Flux as States Seek to Change the Rules
Aug. 10 — When state Democratic leaders from around the country meet this weekend in Vermont, the California chairman, Art Torres, expects to be peppered with the sort of questions that have been clogging his in-box for weeks.
What is this about Republicans trying to change the way Electoral College votes are allocated in California? Is there a counter-effort by Democrats in the works? What does it mean for presidential candidates?
...In California, that has led to a nascent Republican bid to apportion the state’s Electoral College votes by congressional district, not by statewide vote, in a move that most everyone agrees would benefit Republican candidates. Democrats in North Carolina are considering a similar move — because it would help Democrats there.
If the California measure succeeds, “It would make it impossible for a Democrat to win the White House” in a close election, predicted Steve Schmidt, a Republican consultant who ran Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s most recent campaign in California and has been an adviser to the presidential campaign of Senator John McCain.
Democrats and other interest groups have already vowed to take measures to defeat such a proposal.
In the North Carolina Legislature, Democrats nearly signed off on a similar measure for that state this summer, until the party chairman, Howard Dean, stepped in to get the issue tabled for the session.
Dems could hardly argue against a change for California if North Carolina was doing it. The change would be a good idea for NC, but we are not an island - the overall out come would nearly guarantee us a Republican president again.
Democrats are learning about strategy.
- NCVoter's blog
- 1055 reads
5 important words
"If the California measure succeeds."
1 Thessalonians 5:21: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks
OK, I understand about strategy.
But this bothers me.
Because Howard Dean, great leader and strategist that he is, has no political standing in NC. We never elected him. We did, however, elect those folks who meet in Raleigh.
For the record, I don't know where I stand on the bill - but I'm definitely against political power brokers of any stripe stepping into state business.
Just my thoughts, for what it's worth.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Your thoughts are always worth something here.
1 Thessalonians 5:21: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks
Inaugural post from Rep. Melanie Wade Goodwin
My spouse, Wayne Goodwin, has been bragging about this blog, so I decided to check it out. I saw a thread about the electoral college bill, and felt compelled to write to set the record straight about what happened with this bill.
As the House member handling Senate Bill 353, which purported to allocate North Carolina’s electoral votes by Congressional district, with two votes reflecting the North Carolina’s popular vote, I moved this bill back to House Election Laws Committee after a successful vote on 2nd reading on the House floor but before the final vote on 3rd reading. The reason is NOT because of Howard Dean's call, but rather because we did not have the votes to pass the bill on 3rd reading. Several Democrats who supported the bill on 2nd reading indicated to me they received tremendous pressure from constituents to change their vote to NO on 3rd reading. There were enough Democrats changing their positions to shift the balance against the bill’s passage. By moving the bill back to committee, we enable the House to consider it during the short session.
So the bottom line is this: Regardless of the national Democratic Party’s concerns, we simply didn’t have the votes to pass the bill this year. I hope this information sets the record straight about what happened.
Hello, Lorilei . . . but where did constituents get the idea
between reading 2 and 3 that they didn't like the bill?
Perhaps Dean sent out an email. (If so, I would imagine someone who reads this site would have gotten one.) Your story doesn't rule out pressure from Howard Dean. Just a less direct, more grassroots, roundabout pressure.
If it wasn't Dean or the DNC, perhaps it was some other group. I find it hard to believe that independently and on their own a bunch of constituents all of a sudden started pressuring a significant number of Democratic representatives to change the course of a bill like this.
Oh, and thanks for joining in! Come back and post a blog entry some time (that is, start a diary). We need to hear from people actually involved in some of these things because we sometimes . . kind of . . . jump to conclusions. Of course, I would never do that . . . no, sir, not me. ;)
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
don't think many people had this bill on their radar
I saw it on the legislative calender that goes out each day, but it had so few sponsors that I figured it wasn't going anywhere. I never called any lawmakers about the bill.
There was that other electoral vote bill that had more co-sponsors and that FairVote, the DC Non Profit - was pushing.
I never received any action alerts from any groups/organizations pushing the electoral vote bills or any alerts opposing the bills. (I dont subscribe to Fair Vote).
There were lots of op/eds in NC newspapers against changing how NC apportions its electoral votes.
Okay, so it sounds like it wasn't Dean
unless he was behind all the op-eds . . . which doesn't sound likely.
I'm glad to hear all this. I hated thinking he was the kind of kind to strong-arm people at the last minute when everyone was all set on a bill.
Again, thanks Lorilei for coming by and please please please come back.
(And thanks NCvoter, too, for the info)
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
darn that New York Times
I have had people email me and ask me why this bill didn't pass, and WHO pulled the plug on it. I told them I had no idea, this bill was not on my radar at all. In fact it was a surprise to me that it got as far as it did, and it didn't have alot of publicity (AFAIK).
Where did the New York Times get their info? (Not saying the media doesn't mess up, including/especially the NYTimes.)
Thanks to Rep Goodwin and Wade Goodwin for all you do.
Thanks for coming by and letting us know what happened.
I really appreciate it - and I truly appreciate the work you're doing in Raleigh. I'd love to see electoral equality - and I'd love to understand the bill. It sounds like you did the right thing, and you can do more work on it during the short session.
I hope you'll have more time to stop in and visit with us from time to time. :)
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Welcome Lorilei
I hope we get your perspective often. Good to see you here.
Thanks
for the additional explanation, although it would be interesting to know where the wave of opposition came from in just 24 hours.
Someone else had posted on another thread that the bill would have been better if rather than awarding votes by congressional district, the votes were simply split proportionally according to the total statewide vote. If a candidate wins 54% of the statewide vote, they get 54% of our electors. This would insulate us from having gerrymandered congressional districts with one party packed into a few districts (like our majority minority districts) effecting the electoral vote. I think I actually like this idea better.
Of course, this would also allow an Independent candidate who gets 6.67% (1/15th) or more of the statewide vote to also receive an electoral vote.
I can see a kind of Compromise of 1850 thing
about to happen. In order to maintain the balance of electoral terror a matching electoral vote equivalent of red and blue states have to have bills passed in their respective general assemblies simultaneously. For example, if CA goes to districts, then NC and TX have to as well.
Environmental Defense Fund
Cell phones will be to the 21st century what tobacco was to the 20th.