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 ...
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!
Nope. Maine and Nebraska.
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).
Actually, Colorado's proposal was quite different; it would have awarded electoral votes based on the national popular vote.
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.
“Nope. Maine and Nebraska”
Thank you. Stand corrected.
... such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors ...
Thank heavens the NYT took down their pay firewall so that we can read Herbert’s bilge again.
Has anyone created a map of the congressional districts that voted red or blue in the last couple Presedential elections?
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.
No, Colorado’s plan was to distribute electoral votes based on the proportions of the vote by the candidates within the state.
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.
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
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.
Got it; thanks.
John /Billybob
The result is bullsh*t like this from Hebert. What a biased, clueless, maroon.
John / Billybob
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.
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.
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.