FLASHBACK: August 2003

the special election of 2005 (8.00 / 1)

was a low turnout election.  There was a prescription drug proposal on the ballot.  The drug companies put on a competing proposal.  Both of them were defeated.

It's a bit more apples to apples than something as nutty as the recall.

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 22:03:10 PM CDT

At the same time (8.00 / 1)

Arnold's redistricting and anti-union proposals were defeated on their merits - we didn't need competing initiatives to do the job there.

I think it's easier to use the dueling initiatives approach on a relatively arcane area of policy, like prescription drugs, than on something much more clearcut like electoral votes.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 22:38:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But There's A Real Educational Function That Needs To Be Fulfilled (8.00 / 1)

This is not just a clever ploy.  We are so accustomed to the strategic warfare of the initiative process that we seem to forget that there really can be a legitimate educational function.

This is one of those times.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 22:46:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Will that message get through, though (0.00 / 0)

Or will it get lost amidst the rancor? It would seem to me to be better to let the national popular vote proposal stand on its own.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 22:49:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And How Does That Happen? (0.00 / 0)

It would be better if it always rained at night, so the rain had time to sink in thoroughly before sunrise.  Much more efficient.

But, you take what you can get.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 22:53:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually (0.00 / 0)

the good initiative was started before the bad one by the drug companies.  Big PhRMA managed to collect their sigs first so it was listed first.  And yes, it did need the confusion.  There was little money put toward the pro-side and the drug company's strategy was confusion and it worked.  People didn't know which one was better.  You are right that it probably will work better on archane things.  But then again, the electoral college is pretty out there.  It's not like people sit around discussing how presidential votes are allocated.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 23:09:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually (0.00 / 0)

turnout ended up pretty phenominally good in that election, especially for a bunch of ballot initiatives. It was higher than people expected, 50.14% of registered voters.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 23:06:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Too clever by half (8.00 / 1)

This is more of the same from the usual suspects of Democratic consultants who have not managed to win a single major victory against the right wing in the last decade despite favorable political winds and a Republican policy agenda that alienates most voters.

It's typical of them - instead of mounting a defense based on the merits of the issues, a strong argument about Republican power grabs, they prefer to be overly clever, trying to put a competing argument on the ballot in hopes of confusing voters. Win through confusion - maybe it worked against Bill Simon in 2002, but it's failed in pretty much every other major instance.

Many of us have rightly challenged this thinking on the national level, arguing that a politics of contrast, and a full throated defense of core American values against a ruthless power grab by extremists, is not only the intellectually superior approach, but also the one most likely to win at the ballot box, as demonstrated both in the 2005 California Special Election and in the 2006 national vote.

So I'm with you on this Bob. It's a bad approach. Instead of trying to drive away the issue and draw clear lines, it instead confuses them, and makes it more difficult to reach those low information voters with a clear statement about the evils of the Republican measure.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 22:34:29 PM CDT

I Agree With Your Criticism of the Consultant Class (8.00 / 2)

They are doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

There should definitely be a laser-sharp attack on the GOP proposal as a rightwing power grab.

But we can walk and chew gum at the same time.  Even if that isn't their original plan.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 22:48:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed (5.00 / 1)

we can come up with a coherent argument about this being a power grab and offer up a reasonable alternative.

I dunno about you, but I think the electoral college needs to be reformed and the vast majority of Democratic voters still have 2000 in the back of their heads.  Having something like a majority vote to push for will be a good thing.

While the side effect of this competing initiative will be to sow some confusion among low information voters, it will be an opportunity to excite the Democratic base.

No on _ and Yes on _ is not that complicated.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 23:14:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

electoral reform was just thrown under the bus (8.00 / 3)

Lehane's move to sacrifice this means that when it comes up again it will either be ads saying "voters rejected this" or talking points in the legislature saying, "voters have already spoken" and by the nature of this needing to get to 270 and just losing 55 EV's means that if you are a supporter you should be outraged. It was thrown under the bus because they don't want to run an inspiring, positive campaign, but one based on their assumption that voters are stupid.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 23:20:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My priority (0.00 / 0)

is 1) defeat the Republican's measure 2) pass the popular vote initiative.  I could care less about the political calculation based on what insider has planned in case it loses.

Low information voters are not very calculating.  That is why they are in that category.  Confusion gets us just a few points, which could be the difference.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 23:46:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hahaha (0.00 / 0)

The popular vote was just thrown under the bus, if you really support it you should be pissed today.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 00:47:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The question is (0.00 / 0)

Will that message resonate beyond the core Democratic constituencies, or will many voters in "the middle" - including a lot of registered Democrats - simply see these as partisan solutions, one favoring the GOP and another favoring the Dems, and turn them both down in the name of some foolish moderate stance?

That's why it would seem more sensible to run the national popular vote compact at a separate election. Makes it easier to build a winning coalition.

I think Ellen Dana Nagler's point over in the other thread is worth considering as well - yes, we can "walk and chew gum at the same time" but there are practical considerations to having to deal with these two at once.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 23:23:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perhaps (8.00 / 1)

I am not understanding why people are so fired up about the hypothetical chances of the popular vote push in case of electoral defeat due to confusion.  It's not like there was a big outcry when Arnold vetoed the legislation last year.  I would much rather see a big national coordinated campaign to switch the electoral college than this herky jerky thing that seems to be going on now.

I am much more concerned about stopping the Republicans from stealing the presidency than anything else.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 23:54:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree on the push for popular vote (8.00 / 1)

Personally it's not a major priority - Bush would have won in 2004 under such a system even if Kerry did win Ohio. I too want the Republicans to not steal the presidency from us, and I think there's reason to worry that a "confuse 'em and we'll beat the Republicans" strategy will not in the end succeed.

The best way to stop the Republicans from stealing the presidency again is to finally call them on their shit. Democrats have flatly refused to call right-wing power grabs for what they are, hoping that they can somehow ameliorate its effects through subtle means. Hasn't yet worked.

This cynical approach by Lehane et. al. hinges on tricking voters, essentially - not exactly a watertight plan. Better to leave the national popular vote out of it and instead focus all energy on the GOP power grab - thus making it easier to beat them as well as protecting a more worthy proposal for another time.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 00:03:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can't this serve as a foil to the GOP initiative, though? (4.00 / 1)

It seems this initiative can highlight real electoral reform that's fair versus 'reform' that's designed to deliver a certain result. 

I don't see trickery involved in having an initiative that makes electing a president simple:  you win the popular vote nationally, you win the election.  It's delayed from taking effect so that if states approving this traditionally go to one party over the other, then there won't be any negative consequences to their action.  It's not party specific in its implementation - and that element of even-handedness is something people should understand. Anyone claiming the initiative is designed to favor Democrats is just saying that Democrats believe they can win in a fair vote.  Not very pursuasive unless you're a GOP dead-ender...

So couldn't this be a very healthy contrast to the faux reform that doles out EV's in just our fair state and by using gerrymandered congressional districts to do so?  Drawing the contrasts would help:

*adopt a system that is used across the country to elect the president vs. adopt a system for CA that's different than rest of country which minimizes the impact of the results

*go by popular vote where your vote counts as much as anybody else's vs. go by heavily gerrymandered congressional district vote results to dole out EV's, thereby making most people's votes totally inconsequential (since so few CD's are ever in play.)

I'm too tired to do more examples, but hopefully I've made the point that having the popular vote EV initiative on the ballot at the same time as the GOP steal-the-White House initiative could be helpful to defeating the GOP ruse and perhaps even help the real reform proposal pass.

Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here

---

by: PeteB2 @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:46:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

this isn't a YES on popular vote (0.00 / 0)

This is throw popular vote under the wheels.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 00:48:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But That's Assuming It Would Have Gotten Another Comparable Chance (8.00 / 1)

While the 2000 election was a gargantuan travesty of justice, my focus is "first do no harm."  That means putting off fixing the problems, if necessary, in order to stop the GOP from making things worse, and using a different strategem to steal the 2008 election.

It seems quite clear to me that we're not going to get the national popular vote compact by 2008.  The realistic goal is to get it by 2012.  Here in California, if it fails at the polls, we can still do that by electing a Democratic governor, and passing it through the legislature.  This is the sensible fall-back plan for passing it in California, and it can be done in plenty of time for 2012.

In addition, I don't think that we necessarily would get a better shot at the polls if we didn't have it on the ballot now.  Of course we could get a better shot.  But there's nothing to guarantee it.

On the other hand, the GOP plan is a real threat to steal the 2008 election.  While running both plans at the same time will probably hurt the national popular vote by a few percentage points, it still might pass, and it probably does make it easier to stop the GOP.

I don't have to agree with the thinking of the consultant class to think that this could be a workable approach.  Yes, they are putzes.  What else is new?

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 09:42:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Triage (0.00 / 0)

I am much more concerned about stopping the Republicans from stealing the presidency than anything else.

Precisely!

First, stop the GOP from stealing the 2008 election.

Then, fix it so they can't steal future elections the way they stole the 2000 election.

Yes, I know there's a larger issue about the moral rightness of getting rid of the electoral college.  And I share that sentiment.  But the chances of the next election bringing us another popular vote at odds with the electoral college vote are pretty slim. Unless, of course, the GOP gets their initiative passed here in California.

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 09:50:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Depressing state of affairs (0.00 / 0)

Aside from whether it's true or not, that this is the only/best way to stop it.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 09:57:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You give the public too much credit. (0.00 / 0)

They are a bunch of sheep who voted for the recall because a movie star was running for governor.

Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate...

---

by: modem @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:01:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]