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

To: Hemorrhage; DoughtyOne; LexBaird; SierraWasp; Carry_Okie
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.

21 posted on 10/23/2007 5:00:23 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: calcowgirl

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.


25 posted on 10/23/2007 6:04:28 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Old Chinese Proverb (well sorta) say dance with the one who brung ya. Yes we very much like Crinton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

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