About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Sacramento Bee uncritically reported GOP's claims about effects of CA ballot initiative

December 05, 2007 12:12 pm ET

SUMMARY: In reporting on a Republican-backed California ballot initiative that would award the state's electoral votes by congressional district, The Sacramento Bee stated that "Republicans behind the initiative said it would force presidential candidates to visit California more often and give more voters a voice in the presidential outcome." But the Bee did not note that there are only three congressional districts in California that Sen. John Kerry or President Bush carried by 5 percentage points or less during the 2004 presidential election; thus, if the initiative passed, campaigns would presumably have little incentive to "visit California more often," as the initiative's backers reportedly claimed. Moreover, California voters would have less influence on the outcome of elections, because voters would likely deliver fewer than the current 55 electoral votes to the winner.

27 Comments

In a December 4 article on the controversial Republican-backed California ballot initiative that would award the state's electoral votes by congressional district, The Sacramento Bee reported that "Republicans behind the initiative said it would force presidential candidates to visit California more often and give more voters a voice in the presidential outcome." But the Bee did not note, as Media Matters for America has documented, that there are only three congressional districts in California that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) or President Bush carried by 5 percentage points or less during the 2004 presidential election; thus, if the initiative passed, campaigns would presumably have little incentive to "visit California more often," as the initiative's backers reportedly claimed. Further, the article did not report that the measure would also give California voters less influence on the outcome of national elections because it would make it virtually impossible for the state to award 55 electoral votes to its winner, as it does under the current winner-take-all system.

According to a Media Matters analysis of data from The Almanac of American Politics, published by the nonpartisan National Journal Group, only three California congressional districts were carried by 5 percentage points or less in 2004, providing presidential candidates little reason to campaign throughout the state if electors were chosen by district rather than statewide. Contrary to the claim reportedly made by the measure's supporters, it would thus make little sense for a presidential candidate "to visit California more often" since the state would offer as few potentially competitive electoral votes as Wyoming or Delaware, instead of campaigning in "swing" states such as Ohio (20 electoral votes) or Florida (27 electoral votes).

Indeed, as San Francisco Chronicle editorial page editor John Diaz wrote in a September 9 column:

So clear is the partisan bent of these districts -- by design, with the assistance of sophisticated computer modeling -- that it's hard to imagine that more than a few would truly be up for grabs in any presidential election.

In reality, if California were to apportion electors by congressional district, its current prize of 55 electoral votes suddenly would be diminished to a competition for perhaps five electors (equivalent to Idaho or West Virginia) at the most.

Further, as Media Matters also noted, under the GOP plan, California voters would actually have less influence on the outcome of national elections. Under the state's current winner-take-all system, California awards 55 electoral votes to its winner, far more than any other state. Under the GOP plan, it would be essentially impossible for the winner of California to gain 55 electoral votes. Indeed, if this plan had been in effect in 2004, California would have awarded Kerry 33 electoral votes and Bush 22 votes. Rather than providing a margin of 55 electoral votes to its winner, California would have provided an 11-vote margin -- reducing California's clout to that of Indiana.

From the December 4 Sacramento Bee article:

Republican political consultant Dave Gilliard, who is spearheading the Electoral College initiative effort, has insisted for the past month that local elections officials could speed up the random counting process so the initiative could qualify for the June election by a Jan. 24 state deadline.

But such an assumption may be unreasonable because county registrars already have committed workers to prepare for the Feb. 5 election, said Stephen Weir, registrar of voters in Contra Costa County and president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials.

Counties are slammed with duties that include mailing ballots to overseas voters, preparing ballot guides, training poll workers and gearing up for absentee voting that begins Jan. 7. At the same time, many county election offices are juggling staff vacation time around the holidays.

"They're risking it, honestly," Weir said of Gilliard's initiative effort. "They're risking it. They're up against a tidal wave of programming. ... You can't miss deadlines when you have a live election going."

Democrats have charged that the initiative is a ploy to ensure Republicans obtain 20 or more electoral votes in California, a state no GOP presidential candidate has won since George H.W. Bush in 1988. But Republicans behind the initiative said it would force presidential candidates to visit California more often and give more voters a voice in the presidential outcome.

Gilliard and other GOP consultants took over the initiative drive in late October after earlier proponents abandoned the proposal due to a lack of funding and a questionable donation received from a Rudy Giuliani supporter.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Marker (December 05, 2007 12:15 pm ET)
         

      Repugs trying to steal another election, just say no California and shoot down the repugrocy.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (December 05, 2007 6:11 pm ET)
           

        Well the Fix is in guys-- this is the way the political establishment is going to win the election for the Right.

        Don't count on Californians to be astute about this either-- this is the same state that recalled Gray Davis for absolutely no reason-- right after they re-elected him!-- and then voted Arnold in, all to great big cheers.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (December 05, 2007 12:15 pm ET)
         

      Wow. This is a blatant, transparent lie...even by Republican standards.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (December 05, 2007 1:25 pm ET)
           

        Even sleazier...

        What are petitioners using as bait for this initiative?

        Kids with cancer

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (December 05, 2007 2:25 pm ET)
             

          I saw that yesterday. Good to note that the AG actually intends to open an investigation into that illegal practice. I think the california republican party and Guliani shot themselves in the foot with that one.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (December 05, 2007 6:14 pm ET)
             

          Fairness and equity is the bait... It's all so reasonable...

          I can't stress the point enough that this initiative will win, and there's no way the Republican dominated courts are going to overturn it. It's all about expedience-- and it's going to make 2000 look like Romper Room.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 05, 2007 12:19 pm ET)
         

      And this is like the fouth time in the last week that MMFA has reported on it!  I guess the lie machine if firing on all cylinders.  If this prop goes down (in flames, as it should) MMFA (and groups like it) deserve a lot of credit for fighting back against the noise makers. 

       SO KEEP IT UP MMFA!  YOU ARE DOING GOOD, AND NECESSARY WORK!!!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (December 05, 2007 1:21 pm ET)
           

        Agreed. I'm not seeing much about it on the cable "news" shows. I'd like to see a poll of how many Americans even know this is happening, and what it would mean.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mr. l (December 05, 2007 1:31 pm ET)
             

          Agreed!  I haven't seen a lick of this in the MM- I wonder how many Californians are aware of this ...?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (December 05, 2007 1:43 pm ET)
               

            I did flip on one of the network news shows this morning. I heard nothing about the initiative, but there was a report that the "right to turn left" proposal has been approved.

            Congratulations go out to Tommy, for his dozen new left turn arrows on the westside, and to anyone in the Valley, for their additional 60 green arrows.

            (Now let's divvy up those electoral votes while they're distracted by their shiny new traffic signals- heh heh)

             

            Report Abuse
          • Author by commonsenseliberal (December 05, 2007 4:59 pm ET)
               

            I was made aware of it on ABC 7 News here in San Francisco.  They had a piece on it a few months ago.  It aired as part of their "Fact Check".  It aired around the same time that the Giuliani campaign was recovering from reports that a fundraiser was held here in the Bay Area for Giuliani - admission was $9.11.  How pathetic these jerks are!

            Report Abuse
    • Author by todnancy1465 (December 05, 2007 4:01 pm ET)
         

      For your informatin there are 53 congresional districts in california. One of many error on your site.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by WildcatProgressive (December 05, 2007 4:32 pm ET)
           

        What in the world are you talking about?  What mistake?  53 districts?  Add two senators and you get ... 55 electoral votes.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by cicero418 (December 05, 2007 4:34 pm ET)
           

        Can't believe I'm actually defending MMFA here...

        But, while correct in saying that California only has 53 congressional districts, you are incorrect in saying this constitutes an error on the part of MMFA.  Remember, the number of electors a state has is determined by the number of Representatives PLUS Senators a state has.  Since every state has 2 Senators, 53 + 2 = 55 electors.

        I re-read the article, and as far as I can tell, MMFA was mentioning 55 electors, not 55 representatives.

        Later,

        Report Abuse
      • Author by commonsenseliberal (December 05, 2007 5:01 pm ET)
           

        There are 55 congressional districts.  Republicans believe that by changing the rules (because they can't win by current rules, so they have to change them), they may be able to grab 19 or 20 congressional districts.  So, you're still WRONG.

        Damned right-wingers trying to call people on things - and they don't even have it correct themselves.  Sheesh...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by commonsenseliberal (December 05, 2007 5:03 pm ET)
             

          Excuse me.  53 congressional districts, 2 senators; therefore, 55 electoral.  Pardon the error.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by commonsenseliberal (December 05, 2007 5:07 pm ET)
         

      I'm going to join HBL here (who, besides being an excellent poster, has mentioned this more than once on other threads) - and ask any - ANY conservative poster here why it's alright to do this here in California, but not ANY OTHER state in the union (besides Maine and Nebraska, whose electoral votes are small in number anyway and couldn't make the difference in a presidential election)?

      Please, please, please tell me why you righties aren't pushing this equally in all states.  Is it because you might lose some electoral college votes in some decidedly red states to the Democratic candidate?  Of course it is.

      Republicans are just too cowardly to tell the truth. 

      I'll wait patiently for an answer, though I won't hold my breath.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by cicero418 (December 05, 2007 5:27 pm ET)
           

        Well, to be fair...

        ...a similar proposal was vetted here in North Carolina, by Democrats.  The NC Democrats made much the same arguments as the CA Republicans, and the NC Republicans were just as much opposed as the CA Democrats.

        But just think, if this had been in place in NC for the 2000 election, Al Gore wouldn't have needed Florida to win.

        Myself, I support the idea of proportionally allocating electors based on the overall state vote.  I'm not to keen on basing them on congressional district vote totals.

        Later,

        Report Abuse
        • Author by commonsenseliberal (December 05, 2007 8:21 pm ET)
             

          Thank you for your answer.  If this were something that was happening in ALL states, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  However, it's only happening in CA.  Maybe it happened in the past in NC with the Democrats.  I don't know about it, but it could have happened - and I'm outraged that even the Democrats could do something like that.  In any case, let's call this what it is: using dirty politics to try to grab extra votes in a state where Republicans have no chance at gaining all of the electoral votes.  I'll say it again: they can't play by the rules, so they try to change the rules.  Jerks.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (December 05, 2007 5:31 pm ET)
           

        They tried this in Colorado a few years ago, but it was voted down.  Too many Republicans in the Centennial State preferred the "winner-take-all" method because it kept Colorado a red state.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (December 05, 2007 6:17 pm ET)
           

        "Please, please, please tell me why you righties aren't pushing this equally in all states. "

        They could care less how it looks. They giggle at our discomfiture. It's all about expedience-- whatever it takes. 

        Until Dems are willing to play hardball with these people, they will always win. Always. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (December 05, 2007 9:31 pm ET)
         

      get rid of the electoral college.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 06, 2007 10:38 am ET)
         

      So everywhere it's been tried by Dem's, the Pub's shot it down.  (As should have been done, to be fair, and as should be done in Maine and Nebraska as well.  Everyone should use the same system, regardless of which system we use.)  And now the Pub's want tp use it to there benefit.   Their hypocrasy astouds me.

       Where are the pro-Democrat gourps?  Where are he progressives?  Why don't we have a noise machine to fight this?  If we remain silent, we deserve what we get!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by BillJ-MN (December 06, 2007 11:09 am ET)
         

      What strikes me as interesting is that in all of the recent items MMFA has posted recently on this topic I can't recall one person who tried to defend the efforts of the Republicans in California.

      That speaks volumes as to how indefensible this measure is.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by atheist (December 06, 2007 12:01 pm ET)
         

      A little history, I presume this info is correct:

      At first, the most frequent method of popular election was within legislative districts, the method apparently favored by many of the Founders. As a consequence, a state’s electoral votes were often divided among two or more presidential candidates. But with the rise of political parties during the 1830s, the states began to use at-large, winner-take-all elections to choose presidential electors. In the winner-take-all system, the party carrying the state, by however small a popular plurality, wins all of the state’s electors. The minority party, or parties, gets none. Today, all states except Maine and Nebraska use this at-large, winner-take-all system.

      http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politics/eleccol/katz.htm

      I would like to know exactly why the states changed to the winner-takes-all scheme. 

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by (December 06, 2007 4:41 pm ET)
         

      I think the biggest thing, is that it was disclosed that Giuliani's camp is behind the whole thing, and if it got on the ballot, the vote would be on electronic voting machines made by GOP financed corporations, and it's proven that close to 100% of anomalies on e-vote machines help Republicans...AND...notice they aren't trying to split up the votes of a red state like Texas?http://www.bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (December 07, 2007 8:59 pm ET)
           

        you're not wrong there.  the whole reason al gore was getting ready to concede on election night 2000 was because of a "mysterious" minus, that's minus, 16,000 votes that suddenly appeared in a volusia county precinct that had 600 voters.  when the "mistake" was discovered, gore called off his concession.  the whole story, for which there has never been an adequate explanation, is in this link.

        http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.