Posted on 12/27/2004 10:54:29 AM PST by white trash redneck
[snip]
two Republican state legislators are trying to change the status quo by ending California's winner-take-all system and replacing it with one that would award electoral votes proportionate to the popular votes received.
Candidates would get one electoral vote for each of the state's 53 congressional districts they carried. The final two votes--those representing the state's two senators --would be awarded to the candidate who garnered the most votes statewide.
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
The founding fathers knew what they were doing. I say leave it alone.
Here's how to get around that:
You also might want to go Tools : Extensions and click on "Get more extensions" to find some other useful ones. The first one to get is AdBlock, which allows you to make all those on-page ads disappear (this is not for popup blocking, which is built into Firefox).
"I guess it depends on what you consider to be "the problem"."
The problem is election fraud.
"I guess it depends on what you consider to be "the problem"."
The problem is election fraud. And you know that is the problem because that is what the RATS are attacking. Typical RAT plays right from RAT playbook; lie and call it the truth, commit fraud and accuse others of being fraudulent. Right out Lenin's book.
And they telegraph it knowing no one will do anything. Now is the time to do something. The RATS are down, time to finish them off.
Excellent point about the way campaigns are conducted.
However, I will point out that this proposed distribution of electoral votes narrows the focus from states to districts. I will maintain that this is not a bad thing! This dilutes the electoral influence at the state level and could cut back on a certain amount of pandering to "swing" states.
You suggested that Gore would have won in 2000 if Colorado had proportional voting, a similar but not identical scheme. However, who would have won if all states (not just Colorado) used proportional voting?
The Founding Fathers invented the Electoral College, but the states invented "winner takes all" in the 1800s. That's what I'd like to see stop.
While certainly it would end the phenomenon of swing states, it would only replace it with swing districts---those involving the largest cities, such as New York, L.A., Chicago, Detroit, Dallas.... guess who gets the lion's share of the new "swing city" vote?
You suggested that Gore would have won in 2000 if Colorado had proportional voting, a similar but not identical scheme. However, who would have won if all states (not just Colorado) used proportional voting?
That wasn't me that suggested it. But I think it's likely that Gore would have won if all the states used proportional allocation. He did, after all, win the popular vote.
Yes, because the Founding Fathers had the foresight to allow states to select their electors any way they saw fit. In fact, in the past the electors were not directly elected as they are now. It was only a matter of time before the states understood the best way to maximize their influence on the election was to go with winner takes all.
San Diego is pretty red, IIRC.
Though I'd love to see this happen, it won't. If California were to split its electoral votes, the Democrats may never win the White House again.
I might be missing something. But that doesn't sound so awful. I agree. sKerry won 18 or 19 districts, most all along the northern coast, and in the greater LA area. The LA spike alone reached into the 'stratosphere' - and always does for a Dem. Only Chicago beat that, by miles I'm sure.
Assemblyman Tony Strickland (R-37) proposed a similar bill after the 2000 election. The CA Democrats effectively killed the bill, because they had no interest in such a distribution of electoral votes (which would dilute their party's electoral votes).
I don't believe this year's bill will fare any better in the current legislature. Probably the only way to effect such a change in CA's winner-take-all system would be through a ballot initiative.
Hey, Ventura was a red county this November (I am proud to say).
Mmm. If the electors are split according to congressional districts, one vote per district, the 2000 map by district indicates a GWB landslide.
http://www.polidata.org/maps/prcd021r.htm
Just my guess, the Dem districts in urban areas vote overwhelmingly Dem (70-80%?)compared to a closer vote most Pubby districts and that gave Gore the big 'popular' vote number. It didn't give him the majority of congressional districts. Good thing for him NY and CA are winner take all or he never would have been close.
California should have a proposition to make this happen as soon as possible. It could be combined with something like a womans right to choose.
A worthy suggestion, and that would put my home town safely in the "red" part. Other suggestions (the north/south variety) would just make Fresno subservient either to the Bay Area or to LA -- same as always.
However, I don't believe that California will ever be split, unless it is by a great earthquake that shakes the coastal areas into the sea.
Under my proposal, San Diego would be the largest city in "East California" (and SD County votes consistently Republican), but Fresno would probably the second largest. Sacramento would still be the capital.
If the Colorado system had prevailed in California, Bush would have won at least 24 of the state's 55 electoral votes.
Yes, and he would have lost 13 electoral votes from Texas, 13 electoral votes from Florida, 10 electoral votes from Ohio...
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.