For a while, the Republican electoral-vote scheme in California seemed like a fairly serious effort, and certainly something to keep an eye on. Fortu
February 7, 2008

For a while, the Republican electoral-vote scheme in California seemed like a fairly serious effort, and certainly something to keep an eye on. Fortunately, at least for now, it’s dead.

If you’re just joining us, it was quite a clever little scam: the state GOP, far-right activists, and Swiftboat financiers, under the guise of “fairness,” wanted to split California’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district, as opposed to the current winner-take-all system. There’s no real mystery behind the effort — the goal is to deny Dems about 20 fairly reliable electoral votes, making it difficult for the party to win a presidential election.

As of last fall, the initiative was in deep trouble. But before we could move on to other matter, some members of Rudy Giuliani’s team intervened, relaunched the effort, and eyed the November ballot.

I’m pleased to note that the whole effort, sometimes called “California Counts,” was a flop.

Proponents of a controversial proposed ballot measure that would have reallocated California’s electoral college votes by congressional district — instead of the current winner-take-all system — have abandoned their effort.

“It’s not going to make the ballot this year,” said David Gilliard, a Republican political strategist organizing the campaign. “The money never materialized to put it on the ballot.”

I’m tempted to say, “Nice try,” but the truth is, the whole effort was too stupid for praise.

Can you help us out?

For nearly 20 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.

Discussion

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.
Mastodon