Posted on 10/08/2007 6:56:00 AM PDT by kellynla
The recent bid to end California’s winner-take-all electoral vote system -- a change that will likely boost GOP chances in capturing the White House next year -- is doomed unless a major donor steps forward to underwrite this ballot initiative’s signature-gathering effort.
During two weeks of petitioning before its funds ran out late last September, the group Californians for Equal Representation had collected 115,000 signatures, political consultant Mike Arno told Newsmax.
To qualify for next June’s statewide ballot, this initiative would require 433,971 valid registered voter signatures – a task that would cost millions.
With the electoral map increasingly becoming ossified between “red” and “blue” states, this ballot initiative would stop blue state California from assigning its 55 electoral votes, the nation’s largest, to one candidate.
The winner-take-all system would be replaced with one that awards 53 of the state’s 55 electoral votes individually to whichever presidential candidate gets the most votes in each congressional district.
A Field Poll last August found that what the initiative proposes was supported by 47 percent of Californians and opposed by 35 percent.
The concept is not without precedent. Maine and Nebraska currently allocate their electors to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote in electoral districts.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
ping
If the people got a chance to vote for it and did, some judge would kill it. Democracy in California is a sham.
With such large RAT majorities in CA, why would this ever pass?
Ninth Circuit - ‘nuff said.
California has a large and committed leftist majority.
They will never, never, NEVER agree to this, whether it gets on the ballot or not.
California has a large and committed leftist majority.
They will never, never, NEVER agree to this, whether it gets on the ballot or not.
No, I agree.
My point was that even if it managed to pass, with the full support of the people, the Ninth Circuit would overturn it because it hurts their party.
And the SCOTUS would not take up the appeal, having set a strong precedent recently that the states decide how to award their own electoral votes.
Look, I’m from CA & I have very mixed feelings about this issue.
Suffice it to say, though, as other posters have, that it either will 1) never make it through the electorate as they are overwhelmingly demo, 2) it probably will not even make it on the ballot & 3)the nutty 9th will probably throw it out.
Besides, who is to say that in the future, this actually might be used against us? Yeah, fat chance in CA. It is like being part of North Korea, politically. No diversity of thought-just the liberal line.
The only way it would ever pass is if those on the Left decided that for once they didn’t want to look like total and complete hypocrites.
If it’s used against us, so be it. IIRC, if every state decided to award based on Congressional districts, Bush would have had more EVs both times.
maybe you should stick to NH politics ‘cause you obviously don’t know squat about CA politics. LMAO
FYI, as of 2006, the registered ‘Rats had decreased to 42% of the registered voters while the GOP had increased to 34%. Independents turn elections in CA. And in the last 12 years, the GOP has gained a majority in SEVENTEEN COUNTIES.
While the Lefties are aborting their children,
pro-life conservatives are multiplying.
I just spent four days in your lovely state. The most obvious thing is that no one is allowed to do anything.
My hotel room has a device so you can't leave the bathroom door open, per California law. Every public space has a sign warning of cancer-causing chemicals (or, more accurately, "chemicals which have been determined by the State of California (as if they had a clue) to cause cancer and birth defects".
The menus all have warnings. The waterfront has warnings. The senators are Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.
What the F*** else do I need to know?
Live Free or Die.
Some judge would kill it because the Constitution says so. Article II, 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..."
As the legislature may direct, not as a popular referendum may direct.
That seems to cover only the appointment of electors. What does it say about how those electors are to vote?
“What the F*** else do I need to know?”
I already told you what you obviously didn’t know.
If you didn’t get the points, I can’t help you.
That's part of the appointing process. Kansas says that a slate of electors are appointed based on the popular vote in the presidential elections. California currently does the same. For that to change the legislature would have to change it.
It's quite against the Republic to mandate how Electors are to vote...yet the Republic died long ago.
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.