Americans have long lamented the nature of their presidential elections. As was the case in 2000, a candidate won the popular vote but still lost the contest in the Electoral College, leaving many voters to wonder just how important their votes should be in directly deciding the outcome of the quadrennial contest. But while a strong desire for change may exist, there is far from a consensus on what that reform should look like.

Voters in California had been grappling with these questions as debates over the Presidential Election Reform Act have dominated the political atmosphere this year. PERA was an initiative in California to award electoral votes partially by Congressional District, replacing the winner-take-all system that most states continue to use. After much vigorous debate, the campaign disintegrated on September 27th when its leader, Thomas Hiltachk, quit after a mysterious tussle over a contribution made by a group in Missouri.

One of the main reasons for PERA’s contentiousness was that just like any other proposal for electoral reform, it benefited certain kinds of voters more than others. Thus, the debates in California and across the nation are best understood as a competition for voters whose intersecting interests, loyalties, and identities influence and complicate the push for systemic change in how future elections are carried out.

Cui Bono?
Viewed in terms of partisan advantage, the outcome of the PERA initiative had the potential to help or prevent the Republican presidential candidate from being essentially guaranteed an additional 19 or 20 electors in the 2008 race. More broadly, if a comparable plan were adopted nationwide, the net effect would benefit Republicans, since Democratic voters tend to be highly concentrated in big cities.

Another major consideration is that the PERA plan also provoked debate regarding partisan congressional gerrymandering. Harvard Professor of Public Policy Dennis Thompson told the HPR that “one of the problems with the proposal is also one of the problems with the present system – it invites partisan manipulation, which does not help voters.” Awarding electors by congressional district in California has the potential to drastically alter the partisan political landscape, especially if the trend continues in other states.

Making it Count
Of course, political considerations are not the only ones to take into account. Increasing the home state’s prominence in elections has also been a major issue as evinced by the movement of primary election dates across the nation. For the state of California as a whole, both the current system at the PERA proposal would have distinct advantages. A vote for the initiative would abolish California’s status as a ‘safe’ state for Democrats, meaning candidates from both parties would have a much greater incentive to campaign there. On the other hand, the winner-take-all system makes California a bigger prize for whichever candidate wins. But from a nationwide standpoint, any movement to establish different systems of awarding electors between states may seem fundamentally unstable and undemocratic. As Professor Thompson told the HPR “variations in modes of election in the states should not be permitted to undermine the conception of representation that identifies and justifies the national majority in the legislature and in the executive.”

All for One and One for All
Those unswayed by party affiliation or state of residence might endorse an alternative solution that more strongly incorporates the outcome of the popular vote, which under the current system is essentially a meaningless byproduct of the electoral process. One such proposal is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which obliges states to grant their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. This policy of undermining the electoral college could also have significant support among citizens who tend to vote against the majority of those in their state (e.g. Republicans in California), because their vote would begin to have an actual effect on the outcome of the election. A similar, albeit less revolutionary approach is the current system in Maine and Nebraska, where residents of each Congressional District vote to choose a single elector, and the winner of the popular vote in the state receives the two additional votes.

Voters in California and elsewhere must navigate a variety of diverging allegiances to consider when analyzing initiatives for electoral reform. These allegiances arise from an intersection of political and geographical factors that lead different voters to different policy conclusions. These varying motivations have manifested themselves through realistic possibilities of electoral reform, and regardless of the outcome of the PERA, the underlying tension will continue to be relevant and perhaps critical for the 2008 election and beyond.¨ ]]>