I do know that when the gal working on the e-voting machines last week for California had to decide whether or not she would certify the DIEBOLD and SEQUOIA e-voting machines (both owned by Bush buddies) for this election because tests she ran showed them easily hackable and prone to software fraud, it was ONLY Republicans who bitched and complained about making sure those machines were valid and non-corrupt. It was ONLY Repubicans and the L.A. Times that degraded her integrity and questioned her motives when all she was doing was trying to make sure that those e-voting machines were not going to be subject to cheating -- ONLY Republicans.

Now why would that be, hmmmm?

Thomas Hiltachk, who specializes in ballot referenda that try to fool people in the titles and fine print, is sponsoring a ballot initiative for the June 3, 2008, California primary (which now falls four months after the state's presidential primary)....

I'll tell you right now why the sleezy Republican lawyer wants to have his ballot initiative voted on in the primary election -- because it is usually always more Republicans who come out to vote during the primaries, not Democrats. Simple answer.

Have they ever won an election fair and square? There just isn't enough millionaires in the this country for them to get elected without some sort of manipulation.

Instead of doing the tally by gerimandered congressinoal districts, just come up with a total number of popular votes and allot the electoral votes on the basis of percentage for the candidates.

Well--this is a bad idea!

I can see the point--In CA we have mega cities that pretty much decide the electoral votes to a candidate--San Fran and LA. Although much of the state is red in color--there are so many people in these cities that CA has gone blue for the last 20 years (since Reagan).

Unless the Constitution allows for the States to allow this split of the EV--it would be ruled unconstitutional. And then rightly so.

I like to go with the Constitution.

CO tried to pass this kind of referendum but it failed. They have like 9 EV--but in 2004 it would have given Kerry 4 or 5 EV. But again it did not pass.

As far as the coming election--if Rudy was the nominee--we might see CA fo red again. He's soft on the social issues and will nominate strict constructionist judges for the SCOTUS.

He might pull the LA and SF votes and take the whole state.


Murphy

california. GOP.

OXYMORON.

Is it really Guilliani versus Hillary?

Mr. Spaghetti vs. The Arkansas Freak show...

As far as the machines are considered--I want a paper trail. If the vote is close--there is NO recount of paper ballots as it was all done by machines.

And the software does have safe guards--that is why the companies are disputing the findings. They waive the safe guards and proclaim the machines are whacked out.

The old chad fiasco is no better. In fact, they were off by 5%. I believe the e-machines margin for error was 2-3%.

And the whole thing is based on trust--we have to make sure the machines can be trusted.

Murphy

Absolutely no Constitutional question about this. "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors". They can do this. I assume the two extra electors would be by statewide popular vote (like Senators). If it passes, I hope other states have the balls to follow. But, the Texas GOP will demand that Texas stay all-or-nothing (otherwise, they'd bleed Dem electors from the cities). The non-uniform systems will cause major conflicts until a Constitutional amendment can be passed to specify a uniform method of election.

Had this idea been in effect in 2004, Bush would have won 22 electoral votes from California...

Posted by rcade at 08:38 PM

Of course if this had been in place for the rest of America in 2000, this would have been a moot point as Gore would have been president.

OCU

In my view, this generation of Republicans wasted golden opportunities and there is no other way they can win. The down side is it will take the moderates to get off their butts and vote independent to force their party to the middle. If you don't participate in the voting, you are letting the extremes take out the moderate views-perfect example here

GOP better be careful what it asks for. Next thing you know the electoral college will be gone and then the Republicans will really be screwed.

All of our legislators should run at large, representing all of the country. No more special interests, no more pork. They have proven they are not trustworthy under the present system.

I just want 1% of the Money that these Candidates waste on an election each election cycle.

Larry

All of our legislators should run at large, representing all of the country. No more special interests, no more pork. They have proven they are not trustworthy under the present system. No more congressional districts, no more gerimandering.

AN INTERESTING ANGLE ON THE DEBATE.

Instead of doing the tally by gerimandered congressinoal districts, just come up with a total number of popular votes and allot the electoral votes on the basis of percentage for the candidates.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Most sensable thing I have heard in a long time.

Noah, your idea would make them even less acountable than they are now. It would seem to me that it wouldn't matter too much where the lines for the districts were drawn, the number of reps and dems state wide would make it come out about right. If there were 100 dems and 50 reps in the state it shouldn't matter where the lines were. The reps would still be conservative and the dems would win.

All of our legislators should run at large, representing all of the country.

Fine with us city dwellers but folks in primarily red states might object since they will have virtually no voice in choosing the president.

When I first read the story I did a couple of quick Googles to confirm what I already knew. Then I read the rest of the posts and I see there have already been a couple of people confirm it. It would take a constitutinal ammendment to make this happen. So stop worrying, left coasters, it ain't gonna happen.

All of our legislators should run at large, representing all of the country.

Fine with us city dwellers but folks in primarily red states might object since they will have virtually no voice in choosing the president.

Posted by danni

Why do city dwelers like the welfare state? Where do they think the money comes from?

""Why do city dwelers like the welfare state? Where do they think the money comes from?""

From the city dwellers. Blue states are net donors of federal money while red states are generally net recipients.

Red states are welfare states.

"Instead of doing the tally by gerimandered congressinoal districts, just come up with a total number of popular votes and allot the electoral votes on the basis of percentage for the candidates."
--DOC_SARVIS

All states should adopt exactly that.

"From the city dwellers. Blue states are net donors of federal money while red states are generally net recipients.

Red states are welfare states."
--DANNI

Link?

Wouldn't surprise me though. Where do a majority of the rich people live, who pay a majority of our federal taxes? Rural Nebraska?

"Link?"

Not on something that is common knowledge. If you are that uninformed then look it up yourself if you can figure out how.

"Not on something that is common knowledge. If you are that uninformed then look it up yourself if you can figure out how."
--DANNI

No need to be a bitch about it.

Not surprising though. The biggest money earners pay a large majority of our federal taxes. Do they generally reside in Alabama, or New York City?

"When I first read the story I did a couple of quick Googles to confirm what I already knew. Then I read the rest of the posts and I see there have already been a couple of people confirm it. It would take a constitutinal ammendment to make this happen. So stop worrying, left coasters, it ain't gonna happen.


Posted by goatman at 2007-08-08 10:07 AM"

I don't think you are correct. In fact, I believe at least one or more states already split their electoral votes.

Goat: see Maine and Nebraska.

So stop worrying, left coasters, it ain't gonna happen.

Posted by goatman at 2007-08-08 10:07 AM


I don't think you are correct. In fact, I believe at least one or more states already split their electoral votes.

Posted by mOntecOre at 2007-08-08 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Goat: see Maine and Nebraska.

Posted by mOntecOre at 2007-08-08 01:44 P


Which is why we in California don't listen to goat people...