So on a district-by-district basis what would be the electoral result?
Posted on 10/31/2007 9:20:07 AM PDT by calcowgirl
PING!
As predicted, the on-again/off-again Initiative is back on.
It's theft to make the members of the electoral college actually vote the way "the people" of their local region vote? Interesting. Perhaps the Dems can explain that one to me.
Ironic, the same party that whined "count every vote" wants to disenfranchise California voters in the minority so their vote DOESN'T count. Millions of people will cast a vote for a GOP president in California, but under the current system, EVERY single one of the state's 55 electoral votes will be cast for a RAT.
The Dems don't want to count every vote. They want every vote counted as Dem.
I know some dismiss this as populist, and I have some misgivings, but CA is simply not going to be voting Republican in a Presidential contest in the forseeable future (the last time was 1988), and this is the only way to assure that Republican voters in the state have their voices heard, otherwise there is little reason for them to even cast a vote at all.
The Constitution allocates electoral votes to each state on the basis of population and leaves it up to the states themselves to determine how to award those votes to candidates. They are given unlimited restrictions on how to do so. Most choose a "winner take all system" where the statewide winner gets the states entire electoral count, but there's no mandate that they have to do this. California could even decide to have its electors, say, vote for the tallest Presidential candidate -- and it would still be "constitutional"
Althought I think Tennessee would switch from likely Republican to big battleground state if it used the "electoral-votes-choosen-by-congressional-district" method.
The big problem I have with respect to California is because of its gargantuan share of the EV’s, it immediately becomes unfair to the minority of voters whose preference is ignored, even though their total numbers will be larger than the amount of those voting in numerous other states combined. I think that once a state reaches 20-25 EVs, it should be required they vote by each Congressional district. In a state with 55 EV’s, which is more than 10% of the college, it is ludicrous that it is winner-take-all.
I ask all of you... What would make anyone so proud of a "Purple" Golden State???
This 'THING' doesn't help our man Hunter, or even his V.P. designee, newly endorsed by Tom McClintock, Fred Thompson.
FReepers focused on preserving and continuing the Reagan Conservative Movement, or anything resembling it and not on some superficial "Vowel Movement," should not become enamoured with this subtrafuge!!! (at least that's how I see it)
The candidates who are on tight campaign budgets would be forced to stay where they can get the most votes for their dollar spent. They would end up concentrating on the major cities.
No, actually, it wouldn't. In 2004, only 2 districts went for Kerry, mine in Nashville (5th) and Memphis (9th). In 2000, only 3 went for Gore (5th, 9th, and the rural West TN 8th, but by only literally a hair). So we'd go from 11 EVs for the GOP to 9. Some other Southern states would only shed about 1 vote each to a Dem (AL, LA, MS, SC), some would shed none (AR, OK, WV). Only in FL, NC, TX, and GA would you see more losses (GA & NC with 3, for example).
Well, I’d rather get 22 or so EV’s out of CA then zero. You know the chance of getting all 55 EV’s in CA is almost nada. If we had had that in place in 2000, the controversy over FL wouldn’t have mattered, since Dubya still would’ve scored an overall college win regardless.
In all reality, you are precisely correct! Only the Metro-Sexual regions would benefit from this... AS USUAL!!!
The "Rural Cleansing" of America's united states of the unique mix we used to have of both demographic AND geographic representation has already been eroded enough by the Warren Court's "Cows Don't Vote" shift of power to the Metro-Sexual metroplexes of America.
We don't need to start this bastardization of America's traditional "winner take all" electoral college system!!! Especially not to obtain some brief, passing advantage in ONE election!!! (they'll reverse this dumb thing in horror, immediately after the up-coming vote)
I’d answer you with “You’re playing with fire by supporting this further erosion of our traditional electoral process, I believe.” But I’m finding it increasingly difficult to post replies due to “PROXY ERROR’s” on over half my recent posting attempts!!!
I’d answer you with “You’re playing with fire by supporting this further erosion of our traditional electoral process, I believe.” But I’m finding it increasingly difficult to post replies due to “PROXY ERROR’s” on over half my recent posting attempts!!!
So on a district-by-district basis what would be the electoral result?
I'd answer you with "You're playing with fire by supporting this further erosion of our traditional electoral process, I believe." But I'm finding it increasingly difficult to post replies due to "PROXY ERROR's" on over half my recent posting attempts!!!
"The Proxy Server received an invalid response from an upstream server." "The Proxy Server could not handle the request POST/Pearl/post
DOES THAT MEAN THAT AL QUEDA IS ATTACKING OUR FREE REPUBLIC.COM? (upstream)
I'd answer you with "You're playing with fire by supporting this further erosion of our traditional electoral process, I believe." But I'm finding it increasingly difficult to post replies due to "PROXY ERROR's" on over half my recent posting attempts!!!
"The Proxy Server received an invalid response from an upstream server." "The Proxy Server could not handle the request POST/Pearl/post
DOES THAT MEAN THAT AL QUEDA IS ATTACKING OUR FREE REPUBLIC.COM? (upstream)
I don’t know what’s up with the umpteen proxy errors. Another thread said we’re under jihadist attack today. I write my responses in notepad and copy and paste to the box and just keep hitting “refresh” when I get the error until the post goes through so I don’t get multiple copies.
In any event, this isn’t an unconstitutional measure. It’s already in place in ME & NE. If I were in CA, I’d give it serious consideration. As a Republican voting in a Presidential race, I can’t make this plainer than telling you that your vote doesn’t matter. It’s not a competitive state anymore. It hasn’t been in 20 years. My vote matters because TN went from competitive to Republican leaning. The only thing in CA less likely to happen than the GOP winning all 55 EV’s in winner-take-all is getting a Republican Mayor in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco... in that order.
Or, perhaps it has something to do with the lackluster candidates in the last 20 years? California has always had a diverse population, riddled with leftists. Living here, I can say I don't think it has changed all that much, except for the Dems organizing better while Republicans go about their daily lives. Remember, we're home to Jerry Brown, Tom Hayden, the Hollywood communist infiltration, Cesar Chavez and the farmworker movement, etc.
Ronald Reagan won in a landslide, twice. George H.W. Bush won the state 19 years ago, probably sliding in with folks believing he would be like Reagan. Since then, we've been offered lousy candidates, IMO. Perhaps if the Republican Party would stop being preoccupied with game-playing, and/or changing the rules of the game, and actually get out and SELL their message with decent candidates, we'd have a chance.
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.