In 2008, Bush v. Gore Redux (Democrats Shudder In The Face Of Almost Certain Defeat)

New York Times ^ | 22 September 2007 | Bob Herbert

[Seeking the truth]

Didn’t Bob Beckel, a devious, poisonous Democrat operative, try to get Electors in red states to switch their vote to Kerry (maybe Gore too!)?

I’m 99.99% sure he did this and I don’t remember Bob Herbert or the NYT complaining at the time!

[xjcsa]

I believe Colorado is one of those states.

Nope. Maine and Nebraska.

[Paleo Conservative]

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.

I think it was intended that each congressional district would vote independently. Up until 1860 there still was a state that had no popular vote (South Carolina).

[xjcsa]

No, Colorado voters defeated a proposal to do that.

Actually, Colorado's proposal was quite different; it would have awarded electoral votes based on the national popular vote.

[Tanniker Smith]

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.

It wasn't so devious when Colorado tried it. Then it was "revolutionary". Of course, then, like now, the movement was founded by people outside of Colorado. Then, like now, people from California were behind it.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Nope. Maine and Nebraska”

Thank you. Stand corrected.

[michigander]

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).

Source.

... such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors ...

[John Jorsett]

Thank heavens the NYT took down their pay firewall so that we can read Herbert’s bilge again.

[muleskinner]

Has anyone created a map of the congressional districts that voted red or blue in the last couple Presedential elections?

[Publius]

Up until 1860 there still was a state that had no popular vote (South Carolina).

Nope. 1844. In that year, South Carolina's electors, chosen by the state legislature, cast the state's electoral votes for Sen. Willie P. Mangum of North Carolina.

In 1848, South Carolina chose electors via popular vote as the other states did.

[Publius]

No, Colorado’s plan was to distribute electoral votes based on the proportions of the vote by the candidates within the state.

[Paleo Conservative]

Actually, Colorado's proposal was quite different; it would have awarded electoral votes based on the national popular vote.

That's the one that was on the ballot in 2006 not the one on the ballot in 2004 which would have split Colorado's electoral votes proportionally to the state popular vote. If that were in place, just about all presidential elections in Colorado would be split 5-4.

[Tatze]

[Congressman Billybob]

The second post is quite right. Maine and Nebraska currently use this method of assigning Electoral College votes. Furthermore, a total of 21 states have used this method at one time or another.

That suggests strongly that Harvard's Larry Tribe is talking through his hat when he claims that this is "unconstitutional." But then, the two times I've gone up against him on constitutional law, he was sure of himself, but my position prevailed in the Supreme Court. LOL.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "Dan Rather, CBS, Plus Duke"

[Tatze]

Oops. Thats actually by county, not congressional district. But look at the house make-up to get that number. And then figure the additional 2 per state for how they would go.

[xjcsa]

Got it; thanks.

[Congressman Billybob]

You are absolutely right. It was in the last session that the Democrats tried to slip the same proposal through the NC legislature. My state almost always goes Republican in presidential elections, and the lib-Dems in Research Triangle wanted to salvage some EC votes from NC. I don't recall the NY Times even noticing, much less objecting.

John /Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

I wrote an article for Contingencies, the Journal of the American Academy if Actuaries, that graphed out the difference between winner-take-all and District voting, for all the elections since Eisenhower. I'm sick and tired of pundits who write on subjects like this without doing a lick of homework.

The result is bullsh*t like this from Hebert. What a biased, clueless, maroon.

John / Billybob

[Paleo Conservative]

It was in the last session that the Democrats tried to slip the same proposal through the NC legislature.

The only fair way to do it would be to have a constitutional amendment allocating electoral votes by congressional district winners plus two for the statewide winner rather than cherry pick a few states.

As a constitutional lawyer, what do you think of the constitutionality of state referenda passing such a proposal rather than the state legislature? I don't think a referendum satisfies the US Constitution's requirement that the state legislature determine the method by which a state's electors are chosen.

[FFranco]

If this fails, another option that has been discussed would be to split California into two states, North and South. Generally southern California is Republican, while the north is Democrat. If the state were split, approximately half the current electoral votes could be expected to go for the Republican presidential candidate.