Posted on 08/07/2007 8:32:12 AM PDT by Michael.SF.
Initiative would require that, starting in 2008, state's electoral votes be apportioned by congressional district
SACRAMENTO -- California Republican strategists, seeking to reshape the electoral map in the GOP's favor, plan to begin raising money this week for a ballot initiative they hope will help a Republican win the White House in the 2008 election.
As it is, Democrats assume they must win California's electoral votes to win the presidency. California supplies 55 electoral votes, more than 10 percent of the 538 electoral votes nationally.
The nascent initiative, aimed at the June 2008 ballot, would change California's winner-take-all system and require that electoral votes be apportioned by congressional district.
Republicans hold 19 of the state's 53 congressional seats, suggesting a GOP presidential candidate could win at least 19 electoral votes from California. President Bush won majorities in 22 congressional district in 2004, despite losing to Sen. John Kerry 54.4 percent-44.4 percent statewide.
Such a pickup would be the equivalent of winning Ohio's 20 electoral votes.
I thought you wanted every vote to count, Babs?
I don’t know why the CA pubbies didn’t suggest this in 2000 when all the Rat’s were whining about getting rid of the electoral college.
This is a bad idea.
I am generally opposed to this kind of messing with the electoral college system. But the Dems tried it in Colorado last election. Maybe this will scare them into backing off. California is their biggest electoral prize.
Boxer is nothing short of an “Achtung Schnell! Get into zee boxcar!” SS officer posing as a senator. While the CA GOP is at it, see what they can do to break up the 9th Jerkit court too.
Go figure.
It would be a good idea if they split the state in half. Southern California and Northern California. Southern California would include San Francisco and Los Angeles. In this manner, Northern California would have a say in how it wants to live. SF and LA control everything right now. Not only that, Southern California would have to “PAY” for Northern California’s water.
As much as I would love for the GOP to win some CA electoral votes, this is a bad idea. If all 50 states did this, the president would almost always come from the same party as the majority in the House. Looking at past elections, we would have had presidents Dukakis, Mondale, and 2 terms of Carter. We would also have Bob Dole as President!
That would be fine with me.
However, this would set a bad precident. If CA goes this way, it is conceivable that the entire representative democracy that we currently have would be replaced with mob rule.
Fraud machines in Chicago, Philadelphia and Detroit put what would be normally competitive states out of play. Smaller versions in St. Louis, Miami, Denver, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Memphis, Cleveland and, lately, even Phoenix and Las Vegas are putting once reliably conservative states in play.
In general I have been oppossed to similar changes. However, with 55 electoral votes at stake in one liberal state, it would seem to be an idea worth considering.
With the Democrats pretty much in charge here in California, I would say we already have mob rule.
;)
You must not be familiar with the inner workings of California. SF wants nothing to do with LA or anything with "South" in front of it. At best the dividing line would be SLO County, as part of the South.
I believe this is a good idea and that the other 49 states ought to do the same. The president will not necessarily be of the same party as the majority in the House simply because the voter has a choice and a vote for a representative is NOT the same as a vote for president (this is not a parliamentary system). Unless this reform is made, the expected changes in demographics will “bless” us all with Democrat presidents as far as the eyes can see.
I think all states should do this. It would make RAT vote fraud inconsequential.
Since Reagan and Bush(41)won a majority vote in more congressional districts, they still would have won, even though a Democrat house was elected at the same time. People vote differently for President.
You are right that we would have had a President Dole, because he won a majority in more congressional districts than Clinton.
Let's take 5 large BLUE states:
California = approx. 20 Repub votes + (out of about 55)
Pennsylvania = approx. 12 Repub votes + (out of about 24)
Washington = approx. 5 Repub votes + (out of about 14)
New York = approx. 10 Repub votes + (out of about 25)
Illinois = approx. 7 Repub votes + (out of about 17)
A quick back-of-the-envelope swag suggests the Republicans gain 55 electoral votes here. Probably even more, if you add 8 or 10 more from Michigan and 4-5 from Maryland.
Now let's take 5 of the bigger RED states and do the same
Texas = approx. 12 Repub votes - (out of about 30)
Tennessee = approx. 4 Repub votes - (out of about 10)
Georgia = approx. 5 Repub votes - (out of about 12)
Alabama - approx. 4 Repub votes - (out of about 10)
5th state?? - for grins lose 5 more votes
that means that for a gain of 50-60 from the Blue States, the Republicans give up about 30 votes they can pretty much count on from the Red States. Actually, not a bad deal at all.
Now let's look at about 5 or so of the "Battleground" states.
Florida = approx. 10-12 votes lost (out of about 28)
Ohio = approx. 8-9 votes lost (out of about 24)
Minnesota = approx. 8-9 votes won (out of about 18)
Iowa = approx. 2-3 votes won (out of about 6 or 7)
Oregon = approx. 3 votes lost (out of about 8)
That's a net loss of about 10 seats from Battleground states.
Keep in mind that Repubs get 0 votes from the NE, maybe a couple from Maine, since they already do this. We could probably get 10-15 votes overall from selected areas of Conn., NH, VM, MASS, DEL, NJ that we don't and can't get now. That would AT LEAST offset the 10 lost from Battleground states.
And as you say - the corrupt Dem cities could continue to have 120% turnout in their selected districts. But no Repub electoral votes were going to come from there anyway. That phenomenon alone has put NJ, MI, PA, and IL (to name a few) completely out of reach. If we can get close to half of the electoral votes from those states, that's a BIG gain for the Repubs.
Someone with much more time on their hands could kill a weekend looking at all 435 districts. I wouldn't dismiss this out of hand, though. And more blue states have this referendum process than red states, so theirs would be easier to force in this direction.
What the hell are you talking about? Texas would have about 20-25 Republian votes. Even Nuceces County voted for Bush in 2004 by a substantial margin. Quite a few congressional districts held by Democrats would vote for Republican presidential candidates.
It would hurt Democrats, because they win some congressional districts with 80% and 90% margins. A large proportion of their votes state wide are located in just a few districts. It would make the Electoral College work closer to the way it was originally intended to work.
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.