Posted on 09/22/2007 2:05:37 PM PDT by shrinkermd
...It’s panic time in Republican circles. The G.O.P. could go into next year’s election burdened by the twin demons of an unpopular war and an economic downturn. The party that took the White House in 2000 while losing the popular vote figures it may have to do it again.
The Presidential Election Reform Act is the name of a devious proposal that Republican operatives have dreamed up to siphon off 20 or more of the 55 electoral votes that the Democrats would get if, as expected, they win California in 2008.
That’s a lot of electoral votes, the equivalent of winning the state of Ohio. If this proposed change makes it onto the ballot and becomes law, those 20 or so electoral votes could well be enough to hand the White House to a Republican candidate who loses the popular vote nationwide.
...The proposal would rewrite the rules for the distribution of electoral votes in California. Under current law, all of California’s 55 electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote statewide. That “winner-take-all” system is the norm in the U.S.
Under the proposed change, electoral votes would be apportioned according to the winner of the popular vote in each of California’s Congressional districts. That would likely throw 20 or more electoral votes to the Republican candidate, even if the Democrat carries the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I didn’t read the whole article but I believe there are two other states that already do this.
"Devious proposal"...LOL It seems like only yesterday that the Dims were hard at it trying to do the exact same thing in states that were solid Republican - I don't remember the MSM calling it "devious" then.
Both Maine and Nebraska already do this. It is a sensible system and both states are noted for clean government. Maine’s is hopelessly Lieberal, but it is far less corrupt than other blue states.
It’s not “devious” when DemonRATS do it. Rather, it’s insightful and progressive.
But both Maine and Nebraska are homogeneous enough to have never actually split their votes, because the winner in every congressional distric was the same as the state wide winner.
I remember when Colorado had such a proposition on the ballot and some writer gleefully commented that Al Gore could have won in 2000 if only Colorado had had such a proposition and voted it in. (Luckily the measure failed.)
While it is done in a couple of states, I think it defeats the spirit of the constitution, which emphasized ensuring state identity in the electoral college. Of course, it would benefit us enormously.
Didn’t the Dems try to split a state Repblicans were counting on recently in the last few years? Which state was it, Colorado?
Ah-ha! I was right. Go here and read about the DEMOCRAT’S attempt to change how Colorado’s electoral votes were awarded.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6106804/
Dem handprints all over it including those linked to Dean and kerry. And the article by MsNBC opens by comparing it to the significance of women gaining the right to vote. Now the NYT’s and Dems are upset it’s being tried in cali? Hypocrites.
Exactly right. They were all in favor of splitting the states that voted for the GOP in the last couple of elections, but now are scared of losing Cal’s votes. Without Cal’s full votes they’d have a hell of a time ever winning the W.H. in the present.
Yeah, it's called the Electoral College.
The winner take all system didn't start till the 19th century when the big city machine bosses started it to enhance the national power of the big city machines. There would still be the two statewide votes for each state under the proposed California system. The big problem is that the US Constitution very explicitly states that the state legislatures determine the method of selecting a state's electors. Even if California's constitution states that referenda passed by the statewide plebecite are officially acts of the legislature, I don't think that satisfies the US Constitution's requirements.
Didn’t MAryland have a similar proposal ont he table (I thought it passed)?
“I didn’t read the whole article but I believe there are two other states that already do this.”
I believe Colorado is one of those states.
I understand, and I’m not talking about the letter of the law (either the CA constitution or the US) but rather the intent that states, not the population, elect presidents. As someone else stated, it was inconceivable to the Founders that a state as large as CA would wield such electoral power, and be so diverse that virtually one-third of the state would have completely different voting sentiments than the other two-thirds.
I've emphasized the spirit of the constitution below...
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: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
There are. So they can't claim it's illegal.
It's about time for the large number of pubbie voters in the top half of the state not to have their votes nullified by the population heavy, Socialist bottom half of the state
“The party that took the White House in 2000 while losing the popular vote. Yeah, it’s called the Electoral College.”
Let’s play what if.
Bush beat Kerry by over 2,000,000 votes. Let’s now say that Kerry won Ohio.
Would Democrats still be referencing 2000?
I hope the GOP fights like heck in 2008 and does not rely on California population to pass this. Get out and work hard for the win and don’t rely on some simple way of winning that might not happen.
No, Colorado voters defeated a proposal to do that. Even if it had passed, it would not have been legal to apply it to the 2004 elections, because the election for it was simultaneous with the 2004 presidential election. Federal law states that the method for a state to select its electors must be in place a certain number of days prior to the selection date of the electors (general election day). I'm pretty sure the requirement would push back the deadline to that number of days prior to the sending out of absentee ballots.
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.