Skip to comments.
Electoral System Initiative Worries Dems (Proposed Shift To District Election Formula Alert)
Sacramento Bee ^
| 08/05/2007
| Kevin Yamamura
Posted on 08/05/2007 1:41:34 AM PDT by goldstategop
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
To: Cheburashka
No, actually, you are wrong. They did want to ensure that every State had a Republican form of government. They distrusted a democracy as much as a monarchy.
21
posted on
08/05/2007 12:02:19 PM PDT
by
savedbygrace
(SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
To: savedbygrace
But would they send an army in to depose a democratic (as opposed to republican) government? I’m inclined to doubt that. How would they define a democratic government that was beyond the pale? What exactly constitutes a republican government? What if that government doesn’t meet your (and their) definition of a republic, but it is supported by a clear majority of the people of the state? It’s not as easy as it appears to come up with a clear definition.
Now a restoration of King George in (pick a state)... Same with a Cromwellian dictatorship.
22
posted on
08/05/2007 1:01:46 PM PDT
by
Cheburashka
(Another great rock and roll band name: Hillary and the Hot Springs Mafia)
To: Cheburashka
All 50 States have well-established Republican forms of government now. I really don’t understand what your point is.
23
posted on
08/05/2007 1:15:27 PM PDT
by
savedbygrace
(SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
To: dpwiener
The legislature may let the people decide the issue of electors, if it chooses to do so. I see nothing unconstitutional about that. Its a smokescreen to divert attention from the fact the proposed apportionment of electoral votes in CAlifornia is still MORE than fair to the ruling party. They can't counter that - so they argue about a technicality just as you're doing - that has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of the proposed initiative measure.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
24
posted on
08/05/2007 1:16:04 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: Cheburashka
Just splitting hairs, and I’m sure its been decided, but this is for appointment only. It doesn’t say anything about apportionment.
They could throw darts at a list of names, but it doesn’t say that the electors can be apportioned by result of the general election.
Just thinking out loud on an issue I don’t really care to research.
25
posted on
08/05/2007 1:30:38 PM PDT
by
Comstock1
(If it's a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle.)
To: Comstock1
“...in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...” That seems pretty broad to me, and I interpret it that they can direct apportionment to be used. Your mileage may vary.
If this idea actually goes anywhere (and it may not) as an initiative, I expect a court or courts to be involved somewhere down the line to rule on its validity.
It would be funny to see the Democrats argue against proportional representation, but I expect they would and not even bat an eye at their own hypocrisy.
26
posted on
08/05/2007 3:00:56 PM PDT
by
Cheburashka
(It's a _happy_ Russian novel. Everybody still dies, but everybody dies happy.)
To: Cheburashka
Thanks for the comments. You raise a good point, but then one was raised by another person in return also. I will have to side with him in that the Legislature would seem by definition those elected to office.
The Legislature is not authorized to defer that decision to the people. However, it could be argued they decided to defer. The language states that they decide how the votes are disbursed. It does not say that they defer the decision.
27
posted on
08/05/2007 4:06:40 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
To: goldstategop; All
Here we are.
Bush wins by an even BIGGER margin in 2004 if the "electors split by district" plan was in place, because Bush won over a TON of marginally DemocRAT districts in the south and west.
2004 ELECTION RESULTS
CONGRESS
Republicans = 287 seats (House + Senate)
Democrats = 242 seats (House + Senate)
PRESIDENCY - WINNER TAKE ALL SYSTEM
Bush = 286 electoral votes
Kerry = 252 electoral votes
PRESIDENCY - EV PER CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Bush = 314 districts/electoral votes
Kerry = 193 districts/electoral votes
28
posted on
08/07/2007 4:15:20 PM PDT
by
BillyBoy
(FACT: Governors WIN. Senators DON'T. Support the RIGHT Thompson in '08: www.tommy2008.com.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson