A Stitch in Haste

To review: I have long advocated the District Method for allocating Electoral College votes as an ideal compromise between the extremes of winner-take-all awards (which are anti-democratic) and scrapping the Electoral College outright (which would require an impossible constitutional amendment). The District Method would make an "electoral-popular" divergence almost impossible and would also compel nominees to campaign nationwide and not "write off" entire states such as New York...

...or California:

A Republican-backed ballot proposal could split left-leaning California between the Democratic and GOP nominees, tilting the 2008 presidential election in favor of the Republicans.
...
California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change -- if it qualifies for one of two primary ballots next year and is approved by voters -- would mean that a Republican would be positioned the following November to snatch 20 or more electoral votes in GOP-leaning districts.
...
Democratic consultant Chris Lehane called the plan "an effort to rig the system in order to fix the election." "If this change is made, it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008," Lehane said in an e-mail.

That last paragraph is, of course, utter nonsense.

First off, the only thing that would "virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008" would be Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination. Any other Democrat wins the White House against any other Republican.

Meanwhile, Democrats are claiming foul over the prospect that they might -- gasp! -- actually have to work to win California electoral votes? Cry me a river. Would these be the same Democrats who are far more likely to lament "voter disenfranchisement" and insist that every Republican victory is somehow "stolen"?

Nothing would restore legitimacy to presidential elections faster and more broadly than the District Method, especially in a large, pluralistic state like California. Anyone who argues otherwise has ulterior motives.