Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In 2008, Bush v. Gore Redux (Democrats Shudder In The Face Of Almost Certain Defeat)
New York Times ^ | 22 September 2007 | Bob Herbert

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2008; bushvgore; california; electoralcollege
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: LS

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!


21 posted on 09/22/2007 2:46:49 PM PDT by Seeking the truth (Sale on Pajama Patrol Badges & Pins @ www.0cents.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
I believe Colorado is one of those states.

Nope. Maine and Nebraska.

22 posted on 09/22/2007 2:48:33 PM PDT by xjcsa (Hillary Clinton is nothing more than Karl Marx with huge calves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LS
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).

23 posted on 09/22/2007 2:48:40 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
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.

24 posted on 09/22/2007 2:52:15 PM PDT by xjcsa (Hillary Clinton is nothing more than Karl Marx with huge calves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
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.

25 posted on 09/22/2007 2:53:03 PM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a Liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

“Nope. Maine and Nebraska”

Thank you. Stand corrected.


26 posted on 09/22/2007 2:55:34 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (When O'Reilly comes out from under his desk, tell him to give me a call. Hunter/Thompson in 08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
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 ...

27 posted on 09/22/2007 2:57:54 PM PDT by michigander (The Constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

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


28 posted on 09/22/2007 2:58:27 PM PDT by John Jorsett (scam never sleeps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

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


29 posted on 09/22/2007 3:00:35 PM PDT by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
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.

30 posted on 09/22/2007 3:03:52 PM PDT by Publius (A = A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

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


31 posted on 09/22/2007 3:05:00 PM PDT by Publius (A = A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa
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.

32 posted on 09/22/2007 3:06:59 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: muleskinner

33 posted on 09/22/2007 3:07:29 PM PDT by Tatze (I'm in a state of taglinelessness!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd; liege
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"

34 posted on 09/22/2007 3:10:47 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (2008 IS HERE, NOW. www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.


35 posted on 09/22/2007 3:10:56 PM PDT by Tatze (I'm in a state of taglinelessness!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Got it; thanks.


36 posted on 09/22/2007 3:11:10 PM PDT by xjcsa (Hillary Clinton is nothing more than Karl Marx with huge calves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: trebb
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

37 posted on 09/22/2007 3:13:54 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (2008 IS HERE, NOW. www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muleskinner
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

38 posted on 09/22/2007 3:19:37 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (2008 IS HERE, NOW. www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob; trebb
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.

39 posted on 09/22/2007 3:23:47 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

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.


40 posted on 09/22/2007 3:32:59 PM PDT by FFranco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson