California Republicans are pressing to replace the “winner take all” awarding of electoral votes in California and convince voters to approve a proportional distribution.

Which raises the question: is this more fair or an attempt to change the rules of the game in just one state while most other big electoral states (some of them favoring the GOP) continue to award electoral votes in one big chunk? The New York Times has a piece that outlines the story here:

California Republicans are floating a ballot initiative that would change how the state awards its 55 electoral votes, a whopping prize that Democrats have come over the past four presidential elections to regard as theirs.

Under the current format, the winner of the state’s popular vote takes all electoral votes. The initiative proposes to award one electoral vote for every congressional district a candidate wins, with the statewide winner getting two more electoral votes.

Is this being done to make it more fair? Or can there be other reasons? The story goes on:

Had such a system been in place in 2004, President Bush would have come out of California with 22 electoral votes instead of zero. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) would have gotten only 33.

“It has a gut-level appeal to it,” said Kevin Eckery, a GOP consultant supporting the initiative, which would be put before voters in June. “It sounds fair, and it is fair.”

Democrats emphatically disagree and are mounting their own campaign to derail the initiative, which strategists say could easily alter the outcome of the 2008 contest.

“You’re looking at between 19 and 22 votes that would shift to the Republican side,” said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist mobilizing against the proposal. “The electoral math becomes very challenging.”

Have the Democrats ever tried to do this in states where they weren’t winning? Actually, yes…in North Carolina.

So how many other of states are doing it?

Only Maine and Nebraska currently assign electoral votes in the manner proposed in California. Colorado voters in 2004 soundly defeated a proposal to adopt the same system.

That plan was a brainchild of Colorado Democrats, who had seen all of their state’s votes awarded to the Republican candidate in five of the previous six elections despite reliable Democratic showings in some districts.

“It failed miserably,” said Craig Hughes, research director of RBI Strategy & Research, a Democratic consultancy. Hughes said the proposal was hurt by ambivalence among Democratic Party leaders, some of whom thought Kerry could carry the state. In addition, “voters take the electoral college very seriously,” he said. “Going out and doing a one-state solution becomes very risky for voters, and they get very, very hesitant about voting for a massive change that has big implications. You could be tipping the presidential race.”

And how do Californians react? A poll shows most think it’s a good idea — until they find out a bit more about what it would have done and might do:

‘Californians are only beginning to hear about the idea, but a statewide Field Poll this month found 47 percent favoring the change, with Democrats evenly split at first blush. Democratic support faded sharply when pollsters pointed out what the new system would have meant to the GOP in the last presidential election.

That made Republicans like the idea even more, of course, and at the close of questioning overall support for the change stood at 49 to 42.

Which raises a question. What does California’s Big Guy think? Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made it clear he doesn’t like the idea because it’s changing rules in the middle of the game.

And, indeed, there are two points about this idea:

(1) Many Americans have long felt there must be a better way to go than the electoral college set up as it exists. But most of the calls over the years have been for election by popular vote (usually by political partisans who feel there candidate would have triumphed). There has been no massive clamor across the country for proportional representation of electoral votes or even a substantive call for it by pundits (mainstream media or new media) over the years.

(2) If the change takes place and it’s only in California and a few smaller states, many will consider it changing the rules of the game in only part of the game and a bit hypocritical. If the idea is a valid one, then why not do it in California plus other big states — such as Ohio, Florida, Texas and Massachesetts? Will the GOP be pressing for the same fair distribution of electoral votes in states where it usually wins? At this point: it looks like a tactic to shave off California votes while still taking winner take all votes in states where it usually wins.

According to the Times, winning a “no” is usually not that hard if a proposal starts out with less than 50 percent. BUT the Times notes that those trying to get the California rules changed have pointedly tried to get it slated in June — and NOT in Feburary:

The electoral initiative would not appear on the ballot until June, when relatively low turnout for local primary contests might amplify the effect of motivated Republicans.

“The fact that they picked the June primary is not coincidental,” Lehane said. “In addition to gaming the electoral college so they can rig it, they’re also trying to game the election cycle.”

This doesn’t qualify as voter suppression, but once again (if the Times story is correct) the GOP is trying to bring about change by mobilizing its base rather than opting to seek broad across-the-boards consensus and support from a large spectrum of the electorate.

Law professor Jonathan Turley writes this:

The proposal to divide California’s electoral votes has served to remind citizens of the continued dysfunctional role played by the electoral college — which should be eliminated by constitutional amendment. The idea of passing state laws to divide votes between candidates is at least an improvement — moving away from the winner take all approach. In California, it is clearly [being] advanced for partisan reasons to help the next Republican nominee. However, despite the motivation, it is a worthy goal.

Meanwhile, the LA Times, in an editorial, has rejected the GOP’s idea and backs a Democratic counter proposal to award votes via the popular vote:

It’s odd, to say the least, for such a sweeping alteration of California’s voting power to come up in the middle of a presidential campaign. The primary is Feb. 5, the general election is the following Nov. 4, yet the ballot measure changing the rules of the game would reach voters right in the middle, on June 3. Even Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger questioned the timing. GOP candidates must have discovered that they aren’t making any headway here. But the responsible course is to reconsider their message, not to look for ways to blunt the state’s voting power.

Democrats, in response, are dusting off a proposal to circumvent the electoral college by committing all of California’s electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote — but only if states representing a majority of electoral votes do likewise and thus render the electoral college moot. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is going a step further, calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.

Either move would be smarter and more equitable. Republicans should support one or the other, and drop their current ploy, if they truly want to put presidential elections in the hands of voters once and for all.

SOME OTHER INTERNET SITES COMMENTING ON THIS DEVELOPMENT INCLUDE:

Going To The Mat, Wizbang Blue, Ed Morrissey, California Majority Report, Klyfix’s Journal, Global Artist Village, James Joyner, Through The Wire, Random Thoughts From Reno, Johnny Camacho’s Blog, Talking Points Memo,Unhinged Rants, Don’t Split California, Out of the Blue Into The Black, A Foolish Consistency, Soccer Dad, Vivian J. Paige, Current Events From A Poor Man,