Issa's backing revives electoral vote initiative

The Press-Enterprise ^ | October 30, 2007 | BEN GOAD

[calcowgirl]

There’s no question the GOP has gone AWOL with losing members and selling out. Reading that indictment of O.C. Sheriff Carona was quite telling.

No surprise there. The dirt has swirled around him since long before the last election... yet he had an "R" by his name--and "just win, baby." Carona is just the tip of the iceberg. Falling into the tricks of those who promote this kind of Republican is not a solution to winning California elections. They will destroy everything for power.

[calcowgirl]

You could make the argument for CA having more Senators. I can forsee in this century a push to make Senators proportionate to population. Were I a CA resident, I don’t think I’d like a state like Wyoming having the same number of Senators while having only 1/74th (!) the population.

But of course, that would destroy yet more of the foundation upon which this country was built. Earl Warren gaves us the 'cows can't vote' garbage, and now some would extend that to even more of a direct democracy approach. Honestly, we have to start looking past the next election and look to how these changes are destroying a form of government that has and can work.

[Carry_Okie]

You could make the argument for CA having more Senators.

Before that I would prefer to break it up into at least three states.

[SierraWasp]

Hey! It's fun beatin up on you cause yer so (bleepin) touchy and hyper and even more adamant when your totally wrong than Adam Ant!!!

I swear, somedays when you come stompin around an issue, raisin a cloud of dust with you're gigantic conclusion jumpin attitude... It just makes one break out into a broader grin than a slit watermelon!!!

It's the best entertainment on FR!!! (broad grin)

[Myrddin]

This initiative is exactly how I've always thought electoral votes should be allocated. There is one vote per congressional district...let the voters of that district control how that person votes. Likewise, the two statewide members should reflect the plurality of statewide votes. The "winner take all" approach gives all the political power to a few large cities. That also prompts the candidates to only campaign on issues important to big cities. When the vote is distributed on a proportional basis, the candidate must be responsive to the whole population or face losing their support.

[Myrddin]

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.

It is a key reason this Republican voter moved to Idaho. Under the current approach, I have no voice at all in the Presidential elections. I expect that to be the situation for as long as I live, thus the choice to live elsewhere.

[Myrddin]

With this change, Congressional districts would be so gerrymandered, voters would still have no choice.

Too late. They are already gerrymandered. The RATS in Sacramento have sliced and diced California to give incumbent and future RATS the best possibility of success. In spite of the level of gerrymandering in place, the requirement for a contiguous and nominally similar size population in each district makes it impossible to totally lock an advantage for either party. The proportional approach to selecting members of the electoral college ensures that Republicans will have SOME voice in the process. As is, the gerrymandering in place is a total shut out.

Take a look at the party demographics of the state legislature and senate. That will give you a clue as to the number of potential Republican electors that this new process would provide. There are still some very conservative districts in California. Give them a voice.

[darkangel82]

Not Democrats. Communists.

There's a difference?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Again, you seem to be the only one hurling insults. I came in here to discuss this particular issue, and you just let loose with some sort of unhinged rage which has nothing to do with the issue. Get some help.

[fieldmarshaldj]

All you need is that lovely combo of diminishing Conservativism and corruption, and everything disintegrates. This is why we’ve lost IL at the Presidential and statewide level.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I’m not proposing that as a solution, I’m just making an argument. In most states, state Senate representation started out as 1 or 2 members per county, but over time, they altered that to population-based. If we ever went to that based on national population, states like WY would have to be combined in with MT & ID in order just to get 1 single Senator. CA alone would get 12 of them. Of course, the upside would be since they would be allocated by district, the chances of getting a Republican for your area would be good.

One thing I particularly dislike is that you have 5 moonbat rodents from the Dakotas and Montana, and that doesn’t reflect the Republican preference of said states. Some FReepers advocate a return to the Constitutional form of electing Senators from the legislature. While with that setup, you’d assure the Dakotas and MT would dump all their rodent Senators, many Southern states would replace them and dump our GOP Senators. Always a downside to whatever proposal you come up with.

[fieldmarshaldj]

At least. Separating the liberal rodent coast from the Republican interior would be the best solution for us.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Heh. Well, I mean my half-sister believes Boxer is too RIGHT-wing for her. You see how nutty that is.