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 ...
So if "Article V's Article V’s specific language about legislatures or state ratifying conventions" is "sacred", why shouldn't the language in Article II also be sacred?
Article 2.
Section 1.............................
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.
.............................
Wow, remember the red county map??? What a great idea.
I pray that this passes. Can any California Freepers give us some idea how the campaign for this initiative is doing?
I agree with that too! I would include stundents receiving federal aid to go to college, all welfare recipients to include anyone living in any federally subsidized housing, recipients of WIC, foodstamps, health care or receiving welfare checks and any person in treatment for drug abuse (crack addicts, meth addicts, etc).
I’m embarrassed to say, I don’t know how it’s doing. This thread was the first I heard of it. Hopefully, others reading this will know.
The only problem with having votes being proportional to acreage owned would be that people like Ted Turner would have a huge advantage. He owns about half the state of Montana.
Paleo Conservative was correct. South Carolina maintained the practice of the State Legislature appointing the Electors through the 1860 election. The first time that South Carolina Electors were selected via State-wide popular vote was in 1868 when U.S. Grant won the State’s six Electors with around 58% of the popular vote.
dvwjr
I think that it would be unconstitutional in the sense that it clearly says the Legisature of each state can distribute the votes as THEY see fit. If the Legislature doesn't approve it, I'm sure the USSC would throw it out. It is fun to watch the liberals squirm though. This is THEIR idea. Direct "democracy". I'm tempted to support it just based on wanting to watch the libs come out against it. I don't support it though because if you live by initiatives, you can die by them too. I think initiatives should only be "legal" if they restrict government, not individual rights and freedoms i.e. smoking. Eventually the majority will take away freedoms that I may enjoy.
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.I will have to disagree- I am quite happy to see this happen. The purpose of the Electoral College is to assure reasonable representation for less populous states. This is in the same spirit, though one would have to say "regions" instead of "states".
Something has to be done to curb the overweening influence of mega-cities. L.A and San Francisco own California even though the rest of the state votes Republican. The same can be said for Illinois- Without Chicago, it is a red state.
The split-point idea restores some influence to those rural areas in states with mega-cities. It is certainly an idea which is "in the spirit" of the intent.
John / Billybob
See earlier posts.
John / Billybob
Yes. He suggested this during the FL recount in 2000, arguing that the electors were not required to vote as they had pledged.
I do not think that is the case at all, or else the STATE LEGISLATURE would not have been in charge of selecting the delegates. If what you describe were true, each congressional district would have done so.
Ultimately, the Founders would say if you don't like it, move like they did to other states.
Well, since this thread was the first you heard of it, apparently it is not “setting the world on fire” out there. But, by the same token, if you haven’t heard of it, the fickle, uninformed, Democrat voters who only votes in Presidential Elections probably haven’t heard of it either. They’re the ones who would help defeat it; so, this might be a good thing.
Did I make any sense?
I wish the left was as hot to combat election fraud as they are to undo the electoral college...oh that’s right! Without election fraud- no demonRAT may ever get elected again! I almost forgot...
You sure did. I was thinking the same thing, but you put it in words for me...and did a great job, too!
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.