Posted on 09/06/2007 3:54:37 PM PDT by SmithL
Los Angeles (AP) -- Democrats determined to block a California ballot proposal that could help elect a Republican president in 2008 are launching radio ads to urge voters to snub what they call a "partisan power grab," campaign officials said Thursday.
The 60-second ads, to begin running in Los Angeles and Sacramento on Friday, say the plan to change the way the state's electoral votes are awarded in presidential contests would deplete the state's clout in Washington while helping elect a Republican who would extend the Iraq war.
"Help stop this scheme. Dividing California's electoral votes only hurts Californians," one ad states, according to a transcript.
The ads, financed with $40,000, will run for a week. Others could follow.
California now allots all of its 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections, a practice followed in most states.
Lawyers with ties to the Republican Party are pushing a proposal that calls for awarding two electoral votes to the statewide winner, with the rest allocated according to results in each congressional district.
Supporters call it a blueprint for fairness in presidential contests.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Bud, look at it this way. The winer would get two votes. Then the rest would hinge on districts won. The dems don’t usually win by more than 60/40 so let’s look at what that would mean.
If the dems won 60/40, the republicans would get 23 votes.
If the republicans won by 60/40 they’d get 34 gots.
Yep, that’s right. California with all it’s electoral votes representing 35 million citizens, would only provide a swing of 11 votes max. There you have it. Why would any party come here to spend millions in order to win 11 electoral votes? It simply wouldn’t happen and you know it.
You folks are hawking a great plan there. California would have the clout of a state 1/5th it’s size. And for what. To have zero representation in D.C.
Who would expend any effort on any issue important to the state? Well, certainly not a president.
Don’t forget, Fred Thompson announced his candidacy in California.
Anyways, what “California-centric” issues are there you want GOP candidates to address?
Pledging support to abortion on demand?
Imposing “green legislation”?
Do you realize that Rudy Giuliani has campaigned here, while Duncan Hunter, a candidate from California, has not?
Rudy is the only GOP candidate in the field who feels comfortable enough campaigning in California.
See, you have it backwards.
If California gave the Republican one elector per district he won, then we would actually see Republicans campaigning here MORE. They don’t come because it is a waste of time. They get nothing in return, and they would have to run on non-conservative issues, as Giuliani has in his visits here.
Freeing Republicans from the anvil of LA and San Francisco would empower them, and give Republican presidential candidates reason again to campaign here for their votes.
You really need to think long and hard about this, and I believe you will reconsider your position. It sounds like you’ve bought into a bunch of nonsense Democrats are spreading.
Sorry, as a Californian, I can’t support any change as obviously in conflict with the founding fathers’s intent as this one.
The founders intended that the states be the building blocks of this nation. The president is elected by each state deciding who they would like to be president. I’m not happy that California is a liberal state and generally throw its electoral votes behind a libdem socialist, but I believe in the right of the state to do so.
This is just pushing our great Republic further toward raw democracy and that is a terrible mistake.
Worse still, this will backfire. If California splits its vote, you can be sure the DNC will get this passed in every conservative state as well, and we will get the same national result but just with a different method. Texas would just split its votes, like California would and so would all the rest of the states. In the end, it wouldn’t change the outcome.
I like the way the Republicans are thinking here, but this is a bad law. I say no.
Great plan.
But in all fairness, it will ruin the Democrat Party forever.
I’m for it!
Obviously in conflict? Who told you that?
The intent of the founding fathers was for each state to decide for itself.
I know this makes sense to you or you wouldn’t be pushing it. I just explained to Congressman Billybob why I thought it was a bad idea.
Getting 60% of the vote would garner you 34 EVs.
Getting 40% of the vote would garner you 21 EVs.
I miscalculated when responding to CBB. What Presidential candidate would come to California to spend millions in order to win 13 EVs. No, the candidates would write the state off and concentrate on other states where they could get by spending $500k to $1 million.
Are those really the issues you think conservative candidates should be hawking in the state? Lordy...
Honest to God... look, I’m not going to change my mind on this. There is absolutely nothing to gain by surrendering the state, and that’s precisely what you are going to do. It takes big money and time to win California. Those are two things nobody will expend to win in if you reduce the maximum premium for winning to that of Missouri.
No effort at all you get 21 EVs. Spend millions and a lot of time in the state and you can get 34 EVs. Why bother? Why not just make sure you take Missouri, or Indiana or Washington?
Okay what things do I want to see hawked in the state? I want conservative values hawked in the state. I want fiscal conservency, self-reliance, a strong military, sovereignty issues, adherence to the US Constitution, Gun Rights and a multitude of other things talked about in this state. And I want those things pounded in by Presidential level players.
Let me see, do I want my state to be worth 55 EVs or 13 EVs? Boy that’s a hard one...
If the presidential players don’t come here for 55 EVs, I find it shere loonacy to plead the case they’d come for 13.
If you are a Republican you already have "zero" representation because the Dems get all your electoral college votes. What's your issue - CA might actually help get a Republican elected if this passed. Dems would have to spend money in CA, and so would Republicans, because both parties would get some portion of the electoral college votes.
Candidates already avoid California.
They come here to raise cash, not spend it.
California is already written off as a secure Democrat state.
The GOP doesn’t even spend money in the Senate races here anymore.
Why do you want the GOP to spend money here anyways?
Isn’t that money better spent in so-called “battleground states”?
Splitting California’s vote would act as a firewall against Democrats, and give the GOP some voice in the state again.
Please name one “California issue” that you think deserves attention.
California, when taken as a whole, is all about abortion, environmentalism, and gun control.
These are the issues candidates will pander to.
Why do you want to make conservatives work for California’s liberal vote?
You really don’t get it.
The Constitution has no position on how to apportion electoral college votes within a state. That was left to the states.
Around 1988 California passed Proposition 187. Prop 187 was a ballot initiative that was designed to cut off all government funding to illegal immigrants. At the time California was about 60% white. Despite this, the ballot won with a majority of 59-62%, I forget the exact figure.
You know as well as I do that democrats were the majority of the registered voters in the state by narly 2 to 1. Despite this Prop 187 passed.
How did that happen? At least two thirds of the registered voters were democrats, so how could this turn around? The answer is that Hispanc citizens voted for the measure. Once again, because nobody seems to want to recognize this fact. Hispanic voters joined with conservatives to pass the measure. The White population couldn’t have done it on it’s own. Do you realize what this means?
It means that Hispanic citizens are by and large, conservative. The are religious. They are lower end of the scale to middle-income. They have good morals. They want the same things you and I do. And if we would get some candidates to show up out here and actually do a grass roots campaign for the state, conservatives across racial barriers would vote for the conservative candidate.
California’s RP doesn’t know this. The RNC doesn’t know it. Even though Simon came within five points of winning a few years back after a campaign waged on a shoestring, they still haven’t acknowledged that he couldn’t have done it without significant Hispanic votes.
California is most certainly winnable. Of course that’s if a candidate would actually appeal to ALL conservatives in the state, and ask them for their votes.
This hasn’t happened for 55 votes, and it sure as hell isn’t going to happen for 13.
We either spend some money here or give up the state forever. That means we continue to have liberal senators and congressmen for ever. We continue to have a state government dominated by leftists. We continue to have liberal governors who appoint liberal judges and other appointees. We continue to have a broad liberal representation for other state offices.
Sounds like a great plan. If I were the Democrats I’d stop any opposition to this plan. It’s the death of conservatism and they haven’t figured it out yet.
Change the Constitution. Article II, Section 1: "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..." Legislature, not referendum. Both houses of the California legislature are controlled by Democrats.
Getting 60% of the vote would garner you 34 EVs.You're wrong here on all counts.
Getting 40% of the vote would garner you 21 EVs.
I think so, yes. If they get enough signitures on the petition.
2. Is the ballot initiative "binding" if it passes?
Probably not, no. I doubt it'd survive the legal challenge.
Sounds like you’re more interested in getting attention for CA than in electing people who are somewhat less likely to sell us all out to Islamic Fascists, Kill The Fetuses First Fascists, Socialist Medicine You’ll-Get-Your-Damn-MRI-When-We’re-Good-And-Ready-So-Sit-Down-Shut-Up-And-Wait-Or-Die-WhatEVER Fascists.
Good luck with that.
Ever occur to you that if it were possible to get 40% of CA’s Electoral College votes instead of none, you might see more action there?
And looking at Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 it looks like they'd have a good chance of winning.
” Sorry, as a Californian, I can’t support any change as obviously in conflict with the founding fathers’s intent as this one. “
The Founding Fathers wisely and explicitly left the manner of ddistributing the electors in the hands of the individual states. You have no ground on that point.
That was back in Reagan’s time and the Hispanic population was a lot different than it is today. There are a lot more illegals than there were in ‘88, and I don’t believe illegals will vote Republican.
A very interesting read - from August of 2006.
Unless the SCOTUS overrules Hawke v. Smith (don't bet on it), this initiative, and the one the D's are backing, are Unconstitutional. Both are a waste of time.
Personally, I think splitting California's electoral votes according to this old American custom is a good idea, and I'd like to see the same in Washington state.
But I see a fly in the ointment, and as a constitutional lawyer, I think you're the best expert on this.
During my research on Article V many years ago, I vaguely recall a situation around a century ago where a state held a referendum to determine whether that state should ratify an amendment to the US Constitution. The result was challanged all the way to the US Supreme Court, and the verdict was that the strict wording of Article V must be honored. That article refers to legislatures and state ratifying conventions. I believe the Court ruled that a state could not refer a federal duty to the people via referendum.
The Constitution authorizes the state legislatures to decide how to apportion electoral votes. Admittedly, it's not Article V, but I would think that the precedent would be similar. If the strict wording of the Constitution is to be honored -- and if the casting of electoral votes is a federal duty -- then I would think that neither an initiative nor a referendum would be a valid means of legislating the apportioning of electoral votes.
To paraphrase Prof. Kingsfield, is my mind full of mush, or am I thinking like a lawyer?
That's Hawke v. Smith (1920).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.