Fox's Vogel misrepresented Democrats' CA ballot measures as "protect[ing] the current process"
SUMMARY: On Special Report, correspondent Anita Vogel falsely claimed that ballot initiatives proposed by Democrats on the distribution of California's electoral votes would "protect the current process." In fact, the initiatives would change the "current process" if enacted by California and other states.
On the August 23 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News correspondent Anita Vogel -- reporting on a ballot initiative proposed by the Republican-backed organization Californians for Equal Representation that would "divid[e] [California's] electoral votes among the winners of the state's individual congressional districts" -- falsely described Democratic alternatives as initiatives that would "protect the current process." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, either of the alternative initiatives proposed by Democrats would also change the "current process" if enacted by California and other states.
Vogel stated that "opponents have vowed to do whatever it takes to defeat the measure, including crafting their own initiative to protect the current process." However, if California voters approve either of the two initiatives backed by Democrats (here and here), the state would enter into a "voting compact" with other states requiring members to award their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote if "states cumulatively possessing a majority of electoral votes have enacted this agreement in substantially the same form."
Maryland recently adopted a similar measure.
This is not the first time Fox News has misrepresented the debate on the California initiative as being between those who want to change the current system and those who oppose change. As Media Matters documented, during Vogel's report on the issue on the August 23 edition of Fox News Live, on-screen text identified Californians for Equal Representation spokesman Kevin Eckery as "pro-reform" and former Democratic National Committee trustee director Ari Swiller as "anti-reform." In Vogel's segment on Special Report, Eckery and Swiller were identitifed as "initiative supporter" and "initiative opponent," respectively.
From the August 23 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: A controversial political reform plan, so called, headed for California's state ballot next June would allocate the state's electoral votes in a new way. The proposal -- excuse me -- has Republican support, but opponents say it would mean a Democrat could never be elected president. Correspondent Anita Vogel explains.
[begin video clip]
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): Thank you, California.
VOGEL: California is a terrific fundraising resource for presidential campaigns. But it's also rich in electoral votes, 55 to be exact, more than any other state in the nation, and one-fifth of the number needed to win the White House. Now some Californians want to drop the winner-take-all system currently in place, in favor of dividing the electoral votes among the winners of the state's individual congressional districts.
ECKERY: The main ramification is that the next presidential election is going to have a fairer outcome. I think that when you look at, "How can you get more people to the polls, how can you make people's vote count?" that this is just one terrific way to do that.
VOGEL: The campaign to put this issue on the June 2008 ballot and make it effective for November's election is being spearheaded by a group of California Republicans, and critics, mostly Democrats, say that's an important distinction.
SWILLER: This is not a fair election to just do it in one big state that's a Democratic-leaning state. It's a Republican power grab to just move 20 Electoral College votes into their column.
VOGEL: With current district divisions, 20 electoral votes is about the most a Republican candidate could expect to pick up in California, more than enough to swing an election. If this plan had been in effect in 2004, President Bush could have been awarded as many as 22 of the 55 electoral votes and would not have needed Ohio to win re-election. And if California voters buy it, the way we elect our presidents could undergo a dramatic shift.
HAL DASH (political consultant): When California does something, whether it's politics or the environment, it has a ripple effect all over the country.
VOGEL: Early polling suggests support for the idea, but backers need to collect nearly half a million signatures to get it on the ballot. And opponents have vowed to do whatever it takes to defeat the measure, including crafting their own initiative to protect the current process.
In Los Angeles, Anita Vogel, Fox News.
"It's a Republican power grab to just move 20 Electoral College votes into their column."
I think that says it all.
Republicans have probably cheated in the last two Presidential elections, but California has always eluded them. They've finally figured out a way to steal those votes, too.
Where's this idea that "California has always eluded them" coming from? Nixon, Reagan, and Bush the Elder all won California. Nixon and Reagan had the benefit of it being their home state, of course, and Bush had the benefit of running against Dukakis.
No question it was a black hole for regressilves the last four outings. But it's not a given. Should Ahnolt be permitted to run sometime soon, for instance, this state would sadly probably back him right into the Oval.
Well ok she got it backwards...But while we're on the subject I've always felt the winner take all Electoral College should be overhauled.
I agree, it is time to revamp the system.
I agree as well. Either do what they're proposing for California in every state all at once, or simply abolish the Electoral College.
I doubt that will ever happen, though. The fear among small states is that they would be ignored by the candidates, who would concentrate their efforts on the large population centers. This may or may not be a valid concern.
The national popular vote initiative does just that. It effectively wipes out the electoral college and replaces it with a national popular vote. That's the sad part about the misinformation here... if more people heard about how the Democratic initiative works, they'd like it.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Doris, Nerzog & Sagra,
I live in Massachusetts. It has, as I'm sure you all know, historically voted Democratic in Presidential races. Now revamping the Electoral College or eliminating it altogether might not make a huge difference here, but it could in other states.
We here in Massachusetts rarely see much of the candidates, except for a quick drive-by.
The Democrats don't need to campaign here. The Republican don't waste their time.
But I'd rather see a popular vote elect the President. That should be a no-brainer. The Electoral College doesn't always guarantee that. Or at least the way it's structured presently.
I'm in agreement with y'all on this as well. After seeing the most partisan display of legislation to pass our way ever, to say one state is "all" red or "all" blue is rediculous. It just drives that my way or the highway attitude we've been seeing a whole lot of lately.
We here in Massachusetts rarely see much of the candidates, except for a quick drive-by. Jeter
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Like wise here in Maryland. MD is as Liberal as MA I've often wonder how we escaped the right wing scorn that is so often heaved on MA. But yeah we get taken for granted as well. The current primary process is so arbitrary why should Iowa and NH determine who the party choices for the general election are, and the Electoral College is antiquated and unnecessary. A primary vote should be held by all sates on the same day and followed in a year by the general election that only considers the popular vote, because right now you're conservative vote in an overwhelmingly Liberal state is canceled out via the Electoral College process. Imagine your one little vote could be the determining factor for who wins the presidency. The US political system is funky (and not in that good soulful way) and in need of a complete overhaul.A primary vote should be held by all states on the same day and followed in a year by the general election that only considers the popular vote
Best idea I've heard yet Lynn!
As far as Maryland being similar to Massachusetts [voting primarily Democratic] I must admit I didn't know that. Could be Mass gets more coverage about that cause we're the home of the Kennedy Family. Just a theory.
Maryland is well-known for its loyalty to the Democratic Party, especially inside metropolitan areas. The state is dominated by the two urban/inner suburban regions of Baltimore and Washington, D.C. . In addition, many jobs are directly or indirectly dependent upon the federal government. As a result, Baltimore, Montgomery County and Prince George's County often decide statewide elections. This is balanced by lesser populated areas on the Eastern Shore, Western Maryland, and outer suburbs that tend to support Republicans, even though seven of nine Shore counties have Democratic-majority voter rolls. Maryland has supported the Democratic nominee in the last four presidential elections, and by an average of 15.4%. In 1980, it was one of just six states to vote for Jimmy Carter. Maryland is often among the Democratic nominees' best states. In 1992, Bill Clinton fared better in Maryland than any other state except his home state of Arkansas. In 1996, Maryland was Clinton's 6th best, in 2000 Maryland ranked 4th for Gore and in 2004 John Kerry showed his 5th best performance in Maryland.Both Maryland Senators and six of its eight Representatives in Congress are Democrats, and Democrats hold super-majorities in the state Senate and House of Delegates. The previous Governor, Robert Ehrlich was the first Republican to be elected to that office in four decades, and after one term lost his seat to Baltimore Mayor Martin J. O'Malley,. Presidential election years are not deeply contested as national party resources are spent mostly in swing states.The 2006 election cycle witnessed no significant change in this pattern of Democratic dominance, even though there were two major highly-contested races. After Democratic Senator Paul Sarbanes announced that he was retiring, Democratic Congressman Benjamin Cardin defeated Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael S. Steele, with fifty-five percent of the vote, against Steele's forty-four percent. The governorship was also a point of interest, as Republican incumbent Robert Ehrlich was defeated by Democratic party challenger Martin O'Malley, the Mayor of Baltimore, 53%-46%.
As a Californian the fact that this new attempt at a power grab by Republicans who cannot win elections in California tells me everything I need to know as I VOTE AGINST THIS! Furthermore I will work to defeat this in much the same way we defeated Arnie's BS special election a couple of years ago.
Memo to Republicans in California: Try winning elections or pack your trash and move to a nasty place like Texas instead.
Hey, I resent that! Austin is nice!
Send them to Michigan, they'd get off on Ted Nugent.
Snoop the "Nuge" has moved to Crawford to be closer to his hero Bush.
Oh my god.
Fox is pushing this so people think they are voting to keep it and against to change the system.
That is the only way it can pass. Why else would dems in a blue state vote to break up the electoral votes. I hope the DNC has a campaign started to educate. Of course you heard it here first.
It is going to pass and change because they have done nothing about the voting machines.
This initiative could be the death knell for Republicans. If they simply thought this initiative would rally their base in the way the gay marriage initiative rallied them in o4, they didn't consider how this would rally the progressives and liberals.
This is not a fight Republicans can win as an issue of fairness. There is nothing more fair than one person, one vote. Parsing the machinations of the electoral college into smaller and smaller replications of the same problem, as the Presidential Reform Act would do, only exacorbates the unfair process.
I'm all for reforming the electoral college system. But unless the same rules being applied across all 50 states, by changing the E.C. rules in California, the only thing being 'fixed' is an advantage for the Republican party.
I don't think the intended implication is that opponents are vowing to craft their own initiative that will protect the current process. That is to say, I don't think she's saying the text of the initiative would be keep the process as it stands. On the contrary, I think she means to imply the motivation behind crafting the proposal would be to protect the process.
I do understand how that could be confusing, though. Still, I'm not sure how this qualifies as conservative misinformation. Other than the fact that it's appearing on Fox News.
Vogel stated that "opponents have vowed to do whatever it takes to defeat the measure, including crafting their own initiative to protect the current process."
"I don't think the intended implication is that opponents are vowing to craft their own initiative that will protect the current process." - BreakerBaker
You're right, there's no implication. She said it straight-up.
"opponents have vowed to do whatever it takes to defeat the measure, including crafting their own initiative to protect the current process"
My point is that the content of the measures needn't 'protect the current process' for it to be seen that their existance on the ballot does just that. Like Charlie Rangle wanting to bring back the draft. The purpose of that initiative is not to bring back the draft even though that's exactly what it states its purpose to be.
But the item isn't about the content of the initiative, it's about the reporting of it.
I'm saying the interpretation of the reporting, while an understandable one, is not necessarily the correct one.
Let's not forget that other flaw in the Electoral College--the advantage given to smaller states. California gets 55 votes because 53 congressmen+2 senators = 55. For Montana, for example, it's 1 congressman + 2 senators = 3. Congressional seats are apportioned by population, while every state gets 2 senators, thus giving small states like Montana, North Dakota, and such a greater role than their populations warrant. This feature was included at the insistence of the smaller colonies as a condition of their vote at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.