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 understand that- and it does nothing to remove any right from the state whatsoever. The state still determines the electors, still runs the show. How does this damage the state at all?
It does naught but to restore some representation to rural areas of that state, within the state's sovereignty.
Our fathers were some pretty smart folks, but I doubt they could foresee a time when a city became so populous as to overpower the state electorally. Especially so when considering the size of Western/Midwestern states.
No, the state really does not “run the show.” The “people” would in such a setup. The Constitution is set up the way it is to retain individual state identities and power centers over generalized population tyranny.
Your contention must be w/ the referendum electing to establish a split electorate then, no?
Only if a referendum contradicts the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. For example, a referendum would have no authority to deny people their right to own a gun.
Forgive me if I am being obtuse, I am trying to understand:
If the state legislature elects to divide their electoral votes in the manner described herein, as is their right, would you still object to this? Is it simply the idea of using a referendum to do so that bothers you, or do you require that the state leave it's electoral votes whole?
Now, strangely enough, in this case "one man one vote" means an electoral vote selected by a majority of the voters in that state when it comes to the electoral college. I realize Nebraska is different---but perhaps no one has yet brought a constitutional challenge to their system. I don't know. I just think that the SPIRIT of the constitution is such that a proportional system violates the principle of the electoral college.
Thank you. I see your point, and I tend to agree with you.
However, I find it hard to believe that the framers themselves, had they foreseen the mighty influence of the cities in state and federal politics, wouldn't have made some allowance to offset that power.
Something must be done, and soon, for we are desperately close to a point wherein the opinion of a few cities are going to be enough to control even the federal elections. When that happens we will see true disenfranchisement on a national scale.
The trick is to again find ways to win the large cities.
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.