Posted on 12/01/2004 6:14:40 PM PST by SmithL
Egggzactly.
This is one of several shots across the bow I've noticed coming from the Republican side and maybe I'm wrong characterizing it as such.
But tonight on Hardball I noticed that ambitious witch from New Jersey...something Brentweiser, had herself another 9-11 survivor who gave her a run for her money.
My point being that the Repubs seem to be even-ing the playing field as the Dems have run rough shod and unfettered too long.
I've also noticed a nice fight back campaign going over that so-called intelligence reform bill.
That bid by those Repubs in California over splitting the electoral votes I read as nothing less than the GOP sending a message to the Dems: If the supreme court doesn't stop that split vote silliness than we can fight fire with fire.
As for the Jersey Girls, they did more damage to the Bush campaign this past election cycle than anything else I could name. and why? Because they were allowed to speak uncontested. Methinks the pubs got some 9-11 survivors and gave them some talking points. They wear the mantle of victim of 9/11 and this gives them some legitimacy. Don't tell me this Brentweiser woman hasn't been promised a chance at an elected office by the Dems, don't you dare because you will be wrong. All she has to do is wear her victimhood splendidly on the national forum and push the Dem agenda.
Neither agenda of which is, you understand, anything about what's good for America. The Dems want that stupid intelligence reform bill passed and they don't want anyone mentioning that little matter of the drivers licenses as the MVA is source of many demo votes.
Now we have the Pubs out mentioning great big ole California and how about we split up these electoral votes like the Dems want in THEIR states. I imagine there would be quite a few California Repubs that would love to see this as a referendum so sick they must be of having Los Angeles and San Fran always dictating their state's national direction. And the pubs know the Dems HAVE to know this.
Nothing's gonna come of it but hey, it's sweeeeeet to finally see the pubs taking a clue and fighting back.
Actually this splitting of electoral votes is consistent with the Constitution if that is the method a state prefers.
I say we do it. CA went for Kerry b/c of LA and SF. MI went for Kerry b/c of Detroit. PA went for Kerry b/c of Philadelphia. NY went for Kerry b/c of NYC. Outside of the cities, a majority of the state went for Bush
Instead of battleground "states" we'll have battleground counties, districts, ad nauseum...no solution. Only the further erosion of the Republic towards pure democracy..an evil in itself. Mob rule by morons who can barely be held in check by the current system in the face of unbridled immigration and moral depravity. This is an idea which will destroy the country [what's left of it] if allowed to proceed.
Of course it is only good when it is a state like CA to the resident hypocrites. Try throwing that out in TX and listen to the howls.
Just as South Carolina did prior to the Civil War. The legislature picked the electors -- no public vote for President at all.
You've got to be kidding. Loving County, Texas (population 62) would get one electoral vote and Los Angeles County, California (population 9,871,506) would also get one electoral vote?
Well we will control the House in the 109th Congress by a margin of 233-201-1.
President Bush won 31 states to Kerry's 19 plus DC.
So in this system Bush would have won 295-243, not deviating very far from our actual EC win of 286-252.
From the founding of the country until the Civil War, the South Carolina legislature chose the state's electors. There was no popular vote at all there. None.
May or may not be a good idea, but it will never happen,
because the only possible beneficiaries are the Republicans. The authors are foolish to think that it would bring California more attention. Our districts are nearly all solidly Democratic or Republican. It would be pointless for either party's candidate to campaign here. Even if we get a redistricting that opens up several districts to real competition, that would still be only the equivalent of a small state. While it would bring more attention to California, it would hardly make us the center of a presidential campaign.
Call this one a non-starter, at any rate, 'cause it is.
Thank you very much for the valuable table showing results under the Maine-Nebraska system.
The value of Maine-Nebraska is that it provides the optimum granularity of a limited winner-take-all system. A pure popular vote system is undesirable, since it would subject the entire country to endless recounts and lawsuits in any close Presidential election, as well as giving undue influence to a few heavily urban population centers.
On the other hand, the present state-wide system marginalizes all but a few "battlefield" states. Voters in Texas and California and New York and most other states where the outcome is a foregone conclusion are effectively disenfranchised in selecting a President. However, the present system does have the advantage of limiting the damage of close elections to one or a handful of states. Florida in 2000 and (to a much lesser extent) Ohio in 2004 were the only states where recounts and legal challenges were even an issue.
Setting the granularity at the Congressional District level (with the proviso that redistricting reform is essential to prevent gerrymandering) maintains all the advantages and eliminates all the disadvantages of the current Electoral College system. Recounts and lawsuits will be limited to a handful of Congressional Districts (rather than an entire state) in the case of a close Presidential election. Competitive Congressional Districts will exist in most states, meaning that Presidential candidates will have to campaign throughout the country.
The Main-Nebraska system still gives consideration to states' rights, since in addition to the Congressional Districts every state would have two Electoral votes (corresponding to its two Senators) which would go to the winner of the State as a whole.
The Main-Nebraska system addresses the inequity of having 100% of a state's Electoral votes automatically go to a candidate who wins by even a 50.001% margin, so proponents of a pure popular vote system have some of their concerns addressed. But it leaves open the possibility that a candidate could still sweep a state's Electoral votes by battling and winning within each Congressional District. It makes it more likely that a small edge in the popular vote spread throughout the country will translate into a substantial and inarguable margin in the Electoral College.
(In unison.)
FOUR TIMES OVER!
If they are honest, they'll oppose the California plan too.
I don't know how that can be accomplished. If you don't take politics into account when drawing the lines, what do you use? A dartboard? Even trying to be apolitical in these lines is political.
With all due respect:
Illinois would be Iowa Paradise if not for Cook County. :)
The Big Red Map shows that if this were made the national standard, we'd eat the Dems' lunch every time.
Why don't you try migrating here.
And all the Republicans who were against it in Colorado will be for it in California. And they'll be hypocrites, too.
And whatever happened to all the cries for Federalism I see here on FR?
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.