But their are only three conservatives in California!

Just ask Goatman.

To simply put what this is all about --

the Republicans want to put an initiative on our ballot saying that as far as the electoral votes go it will no longer be "winner take all" but instead the electioral votes will be divided up among the districts which could easily swing the presidential election to the Republicans.

But their are only three conservatives in California!

Just ask Goatman.

Posted by northguy3 at 2007-09-04 08:42 PM

I believe Goatman lives in Texas.

They've tried this kind of shell game gerrymandering before, and it only made matters worse for them. As long as this state continues to maintain a traditionally democratic-voting minority/majority, the gringo jefes pinin' for the old days will continue to dine off the back end of the pig every other November no matter how convoluted they break up voting districts. Arnold was an anomaly, elected because of who he was, not because he represented a political brand.

You don't have to live in Texas to be a know it all, but it helps.

this has no chance in hell in passing..
its a PR stunt designed to remind people that there are republicans in California...

But there has been an (r) gov in office here for most of my life so....

This is a fair proposal. Electoral votes should be divided by Congressional district. A winner take all system is garbage and undemocratic. It really is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It is a fairness issue. If you live in a district that is mainly Democrat or mainly Republican those votes should go to that respective party. I am sure the same Dems trying to fight this now would have backed it when Reagan was kicking butt in California in two elections. It's one thing for a majority to win and that's it but it is quite another to have a winner take all system which basically converts your minority vote to a majority vote during the election process.

The Governator Arnold and Pete Wilson proves that Californians will vote GOP so why stop something that benefits democracy? Oh I forgot, Dems only care about democracy if it helps them win elections so they can accumulate power which are their only goals in government.

"Electoral votes should be divided by Congressional district"

So Is One Person One Vote, Would you Not Agree ?

So eliminate te Electoral Vote, now that would Truly be Fair !

-Sarge

UTA-
A better system would be a win by nation-wide popular vote. The system proposed in California is a gimmick designed to steal an election.

It really is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It is a fairness issue.

That would be true if all states adopted this at once. If only California did, with its share of electoral votes, it would swing the election to the Republican candidate even in the case of a clear nation-wide victory for the Democratic candidate.

This would render your new Republican president completely illegitimate, and would undermine what little faith Americans have left in their elected gov't.

But you'd win!!!

FYI,the same thing is going on in North Carolina

But you'd win!!!

That's their whole point. They're certainly not interested in the governing after the win.

exactly

if you want to divide the electoral votes this way then it would weaken it only remaining purpose: providing smaller states with a bigger voice then they would have under a direct democracy.

if you are going to start advocating for the splitting of the electoral college then you might as well advocate a direct democracy

Shocking, another redisricting tactic in the State with the most electoral votes.

It's time to go with popular vote trumps electoral vote.

But their are only three conservatives in California!

Just ask Goatman.

When did I say that? Why is it that someone must put words in my mouth in order to refute me? Can't you find enough material to refute me on with what I actually do say?

NG3 - another graduate of the Buffalo Bob's class of School of Putting Words In Other's Mouths 101. Must've made an "A"

the Republicans want to put an initiative on our ballot saying that as far as the electoral votes go it will no longer be "winner take all" but instead the electioral votes will be divided up among the districts which could easily swing the presidential election to the Republicans.

Unless I misunderstand the Constitution, this can't happen without a constitutional ammendment.

Goatman it has been done in some states with a very small number of electoral votes. If it was done in every state of the union, I would be for it. If it was done in only red states, Democrats would win every time, only in blue states, Republicans every time. Few states are completely red or blue.
I do not say this often but UTASS is a moron.

Thank GOD their still active. We need them to stop "Walking Eagle".

If electoral votes are split up by congressional district wouldn't we have the same breakout as we now have in Congress? I don't favor going that way, but if we did, then all states would need to do it at the same time. Who/what has the authority to dictate such action to a state?

A better system would be a win by nation-wide popular vote.

Posted by Cooper at 2007-09-04 10:14 PM | Reply

Yes, let's adopt a system where elections are decided by places like Philadelphia and Detroit. The Left has certainly created a workers' paradise there that the rest of the nation envies.

"It is a fairness issue."


YEAH!

A wingding crying' about "fairness"!

What's next for you Bushiet posers? Demanding some "fairness doctrine"?

I suppose it was only inevitable that it go belly up like that "up or down vote" "litigating from the bench" and "no litmus test" wa-wa song you people sang so loudly!

Yup, your "principled convictions" are showing again!

This just in.....Republicans propose end to elections and just allow SC to appoint new presidents.....details at 11:00.

A better system would be a win by nation-wide popular vote. The system proposed in California is a gimmick designed to steal an election.

Posted by Cooper

How would that steal the election? If all states had that, Gore might have won.

Because, if only Cali did it the Republicans would win. Tough concept to grasp huh?

I wonder if the Republicans thought up this sneaky plan without Karl Rove or is this his idea???
It seems pretty Rovian to me.

The democrats are so like the deer caught in the headlights of an 18 wheeler called the GOP. Add to that an average collective memory of a maximum of 6 months...they don't stand a chance in 08.

"Unless I misunderstand the Constitution, this can't happen without a constitutional ammendment.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-04 11:39 PM"

You misunderstand the Constitution then (assuming you are talking about the US Const, not Calif's. I don't know whether Calif's would allow this law w/out a change to its Const.).

The democrats are so like the deer caught in the headlights of an 18 wheeler called the GOP. Add to that an average collective memory of a maximum of 6 months...they don't stand a chance in 08.


Posted by panchovilla at 2007-09-05 11:43 AM

Your anti-hallucingen prescription is ready at the Wal-Mart pharmacy.

This is a fair proposal. Electoral votes should be divided by Congressional district. A winner take all system is garbage and undemocratic. It really is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It is a fairness issue. If you live in a district that is mainly Democrat or mainly Republican those votes should go to that respective party. I am sure the same Dems trying to fight this now would have backed it when Reagan was kicking butt in California in two elections. It's one thing for a majority to win and that's it but it is quite another to have a winner take all system which basically converts your minority vote to a majority vote during the election process.

The Governator Arnold and Pete Wilson proves that Californians will vote GOP so why stop something that benefits democracy? Oh I forgot, Dems only care about democracy if it helps them win elections so they can accumulate power which are their only goals in government.

Posted by utastaff at 2007-09-04 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Quit talking out of your ass.

You whine like a child about this and yet the republicunts scream at the top of their lungs whenever someone questions the need for an electoral college.

Learn your own party before whining like a bitch about the other.

the Republicans want to put an initiative on our ballot saying that as far as the electoral votes go it will no longer be "winner take all" but instead the electioral votes will be divided up among the districts which could easily swing the presidential election to the Republicans.

Unless I misunderstand the Constitution, this can't happen without a constitutional ammendment.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-04 11:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's the constitution to the rightists but a goddamn piece of paper.

Bushit, and most of his party wanted an amendment to discriminate against certain people....why do you think it would be difficult to put this on the table?

You know I dont know why they just don't split the electoral College up by percentiles. If Joe Blow gets 47% of the vote He gets 47% of the electoral college votes. and so on and so forth.

Larry

Perry, a major Republican donor, contributed nearly $4.5 million to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that made unsubstantiated but damaging attacks on Kerry three years ago
Unsubstantiated? That deserves a funny flag.
These must not count to the political hack that wrote the article.

- Kerry's senate testimony on video?
- Testimony from dozens of decorated Vets who served with him.

Unsubstantiated? No. Different conclusions from the same information. Yes.

You know I dont know why they just don't split the electoral College up by percentiles. If Joe Blow gets 47% of the vote He gets 47% of the electoral college votes. and so on and so forth.
Then why have states? Remember, the republic was founded as the United States of America. Remember, Senators represented states in Congress. Now who represents the states in Wash? Why are senators elected via popular votes?

WRONG BOXITCH it wasn't the same information because there was only ONE of those that actually served with John Kerry. Those bastards lied out of their fucking teeth about Him. It's well documented too.

Larry

BOXITCH we are not talking about CONGRESS we are talking about the PRESIDENCY.

Larry

Initially I read this headling as, "California Ballet Push Linked to Swift Boaters."

I wondered to myself, as my mind played with the words, Ballet, Push and Swift Boaters, if the GOP had decided to 'come out' en masse.

Then I re-read the headline.

Some days are just damn dissappointing.

"Some days are just damn dissappointing(sic)."

Posted by TreesGoneWild

For you maybe.
Now I have something else to laugh about.

Because, if only Cali did it the Republicans would win. Tough concept to grasp huh?

Posted by BenFranklinn

I did asy all states. Can't you read?? That's a tough concept too.

Article II, Section 1, Clause II of the Constitution says, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."

Two states do not elect the Presidential Electors as a single slate. Maine and Nebraska elect two electors by a statewide ballot and choose their remaining Electors by congressional district. The method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1991, though neither has split its electoral votes in modern elections.

Redman,

Maine and Nebraska almost have it right, but not quite,

The USA is a Republic, NOT a Democracy.

As part of that concept, the Electoral Collage was formed. Why was this done? Simply because our Founding Fathers believed that the citizens of the USA was too STUPID to be able to choose the proper leader of their nation!!!
Thus, we were only allowed to choose people who the FF's believed were intelligent enough to do the job for us.

One concept that has been totally forgotten was that the FF's wanted the Electors to have free rein to choose whomever THEY believed most capable of running our nation. That has gone by the wayside and now the Electors are rubber stamps who are mandated by state legislatures to vote for the candidates who were on the ballot and won the majority of votes in the state that the Elector was from. Thus, if you or I voted for Bush or Kerry and one of those two won the most votes from our state, the Elector we actually did vote for would be mandated to vote for that candidate and no other.
This was not always the case. In fact, one election was determined by Electors who actually did the job that the FF's designed them to do. They voted for who they felt was the best man for the job, not the one who received the majority of voted in the state that these Electors were from.

They elected Rutherford B. Hayes President over Samuel J. Tilden even though Tilden won the popular vote by 264,000 This was when the total popular vote for Hayes was only 109,000 votes while Tilden received 373,000 popular votes.
Hayes won the election by ONE Electoral vote, receiving Three Electoral votes from Colorado, where Hayes had received ZERO popular votes!!!
All three Colorado delegates voted for Hayes despite his receiving NO popular votes in their state.

So my thoughts on this are that it would be OK if Electoral College electors were free to vote any way they wanted to, as the FF's designed it to work. That is, so long as ALL states adopted the same rules.
Were that to happen, perhaps the Republicans would win and perhaps the Democrats would win. The important thing is that the Electors would have the ability to elect someone who lost the popular vote and may not even have been one of the top two in votes. They could vote their conscience and perhaps elect an Independent or a secondary candidate who they felt was more capable than the popular vote winner.

The part that is missing from this whole thing, aside from not all states having the same rule as far as how Electors are to vote, is that the states should not be able to dictate HOW the Electors can vote. That is how the FF's designed it and this has been totally corrupted so that most states require the top popular vote gainer to be voted for by the Elector. In reality, every Elector should run for the right to vote based upon his/her beliefs and if the Congressional District agrees with that they will be elected. Same for the two at large Electors, who would have to run state wide to be elected to the College.
Short of that, we can change this nation into a Democracy, which is not now and never has been. If that were to happen then the Electoral College would cease to exist and the candidate with the most votes nationwide would become the President. We would still not be a full Democracy since the Senate would continue to exist, safeguarding the smaller states from being overwhelmed by a small group of mega states getting together and hijacking every program to benefit themselves and leafing the smaller states with no say at all in how this government runs.

Sorry to be so long winded, but this is actually a serious topic and has many facets that people may not realize. In fact, it is one of the pillars upon which our nation was built. Changing it requires more thought and less rhetoric.

ShyGuy

Long time, no see or else I've just missed seeing your posts. Good to see you around again. Seems like it's been awhile.