Brazen GOP operatives seek to rig presidential race

The chutzpah award for this summer has a runaway winner. It’s the small team of Republican operatives trying to rig the 2008 presidential race.

“Rig” means tilting the playing field to assure continued Republican occupancy of the White House -- perhaps for a very long time.

The GOP would do this by ending the winner-take-all system of parceling out electoral college votes in Democratic-leaning California. Instead of all 55 of California’s electoral votes being awarded to the candidate who wins the popular vote statewide -- presumably the Democrat -- they’d be divvied up by congressional district. Whichever candidate carried a congressional district would get that district’s one electoral vote.

The 53 congressional districts are mostly Democratic, but at least 20 favor Republicans. In fact, President Bush carried 22 in 2004. So the GOP scheme would seize 20 or more electoral votes that otherwise would go to the Democratic nominee. That’s tantamount to losing Ohio.

The two other California electors, pegged to the two U.S. Senate seats, would be awarded to the winner of the statewide vote.

Meanwhile, all other states -- except midgets Maine and Nebraska -- would continue to allot their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. That includes Republican Texas.

To put this in perspective, California’s 55 electoral votes represent 20% of the total needed to win the presidency.

“It would be virtually impossible for a Democrat to win the White House if we had to cede 22 votes in California,” says strategist Chris Lehane, a veteran of presidential politics who’s currently in the camp of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Indeed, the fight over the GOP ploy -- embodied in a ballot initiative -- could turn into a shootout between the prospective presidential nominees. The sponsors’ goal is to qualify the measure for the June state primary ballot. By then, the nominations should be virtually settled. At stake in the initiative outcome for each potential nominee would be at least 20 electoral votes.

So the GOP operatives -- led by state party attorney Thomas Hiltachk of Sacramento -- are seeking financial support from the bankrollers of Republican candidates.

“A lot have expressed interest and a lot want to know more,” says initiative spokesman Kevin Eckerly, a GOP consultant.

Similarly, two big-bucks Clinton backers -- Hollywood producer Stephen Bing and Farallon Capital Management hedge fund director Thomas F. Steyer -- are committed to pouring millions into the opposition campaign.

“Resources will not be an issue,” says spokesman Peter Ragone, also a Clinton camper.

A crucial decision period for initiative sponsors is nearing. Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown will complete his work on the measure Wednesday, fitting it with a ballot title and summary. Then the clock begins ticking for collection of voter signatures to qualify the proposal for the June ballot. Sponsors will have until around Christmas to gather 434,000 valid signatures. This will require money -- about $2.5 million -- that’s not yet in the bank.

“We’re anticipating going forward,” Eckerly says.

They’ll probably have to do it without the support of the Republican governor.

Asked recently by a reporter for his position on the measure, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he didn’t have one. But he obviously was not enthusiastic.

“I don’t really know exactly what it says,” he replied. “But in principle, I would say that coming from the sports background . . . I don’t like to change the rules in the middle of the game.”

Whatever this is, it’s brazen -- a strategy based on the assumption of a low voter turnout that leans Republican while the electoral college measure slips under the Democratic radar.

But I can envision just the opposite. I can see this initiative drawing a lot of media attention that awakens Democratic voters.

“It’s a ‘wacky California’ story,” Ragone says. “Like in, ‘Here they go again!’ ”

Supporters say they’re all about improving democracy.

“There’s no way the winner-take-all system can reflect California’s diversity,” Eckerly says. “We’re offering a fair way of distributing California’s electoral votes.

“This has nothing to do with empowering parties. It has everything to do with empowering voters.”

Eckerly’s a bright, likable guy whom I’ve known for years. I asked him -- only half kidding -- how people could promote this initiative with a straight face. He laughed, then caught himself. “It’s not difficult at all. It makes a lot of sense.”

What would make sense is to completely shutter the archaic electoral college and elect the president by national popular vote. The argument that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it was discredited in 2000 when the system did break. For the fourth time in history, the candidate who got the most citizen votes lost out in the electoral college. No need to recite the national consequences of that glitch.

But before we can tear down the electoral college, Americans must get over the notion that states -- not citizens -- should elect the president. Whomever most people want to be president should be. That’s how every other officeholder is elected in this land.

The entire country should do this in unison, however. States acting on their own would tilt the playing field unfairly.

Democratic opponents of the GOP gimmick have indicated that they might sponsor an alternative initiative: one that would move toward electing the president by national popular vote. California would sign an interstate compact agreeing to cast all its electoral votes for the candidate who won the popular vote nationwide. But the compact wouldn’t take effect until states representing a majority of electoral votes agreed.

That’s hard to explain. So don’t expect the Democrats to place it on the ballot. They don’t want to confuse the issue. This is about an attempted Republican theft.

There’s a Democratic suspicion that the GOP operatives realize their rig job is doomed, but are moving ahead anyway to force Democrats to spend millions.

But 2008 isn’t exactly looking like a banner year for Republicans. You’ve got to wonder why they’d want to waste millions on a likely losing cause. Chutzpah can be costly.

george.skelton@latimes.com