GOP electoral initiative back in play

Sacramento Bee ^ | 10/23/7 | Kevin Yamamura

[calcowgirl]

This draws the nation closer to a popular election, and farther away from the state-based electoral election the founders had invisioned.

BUMP! I totally agree.

[calcowgirl]

I don’t think they ever got a website up and running as they were only in the early stages of gathering signatures before the just-established group, Californians for Equal Representation, was outed as being financially backed by Giuliani’s treasurer trying to hide his funding. The text of the initiative is available here:

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/2007-07-17_07-0032_Initiative.pdf

[Clemenza]

California Republicans are not conservative, they are "populist."

The Mobocratic "recall and referendum" BS is one of the key reasons that CA is a laughingstock. Rule by the Sheeple indeed.

[Amerigomag]

The closer an election comes to representing the individual opinion of an elector, the closer our republic comes to mob rule.

Our system: We choose electors. They choose the winner. Any deviation and we are no longer a democratic republic.

Democracy, especially direct democracy, is the most abusive and shortest lived of all forms of governance.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. There’s another point I’ve made on the forum with regard to this idea.

In general elections the vote results in most counties don’t change. We win or lose an additional three to five counties each election. It it’s districts, I appologize for not using the proper terminology.

Under the new plan there are 55 electoral votes that would be split up by these counties/districts each election. With the small fluctuation in area won or lost each time, the variance in win/lose electoral votes would probably range somewhere around 6 to 12 each election cycle.

Who in their right mind would come to California to spend the millions of bucks it would take to win 6 to 12 electoral votes?

IMO, we would never see another presidential politician campaign in the state again. They could go to a much smaller state and get all their electoral votes, easily gaining more than they would in California.

What we’d effectively do is disenfranchise California. It’s needs and views would never again matter.

The politicans would come here to raise money, then fly the coop never to return.

Seems like a lousey idea to me.

[calcowgirl]

I usually resent things that appear to game the system and are jammed into the process at the last minute. In this case, the entire presidential campaign would take place predominantly before knowing how electoral votes are counted. Put that together with the other gimmicks (rules change for primary delegates, earlier primary, etc.), and I tend to reject it. Just one more reason to not like this thing, IMO.

• Jul 17, 2007 Initiative filed with SOS/AG
• Feb 4, 2008  Deadline for signatures to be submitted to SOS
              (goes on June ballot, if successful)
• Feb 5, 2008  Election - Presidential primary 
• Jun 3, 2008  Election - non-presidential primary and Electoral Vote initiative
• Nov 7, 2008  Election - Using new electoral method.  

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. I will admit that I wouldn’t like it even if it were to have been pushed through a couple of years before the general election though.