Posted on 11/07/2007 8:12:04 AM PST by SmithL
Once again signatures are being gathered to qualify a Republican-backed initiative that would rig the way California's electoral votes are counted and, as a result, possibly decide who is elected president of the United States in 2008.
No candidate has claimed responsibility for the initiative, but there are some obvious fingerprints on the initiative drive. Paul Singer, a Wall Street hedge fund manager with close ties to GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, is helping to bankroll the effort. Also, Anne Dunsmore, until recently a Giuliani fundraiser, has signed up to help with the campaign.
If Giuliani is involved, that's a reason to question his judgment if not his fitness for office. The last thing this country needs is another Election Day crisis. And this initiative, if approved by California voters, could trigger just such a crisis.
Here's why: Under California's current winner-take-all rules, the presidential candidate in the general election who wins a majority of the statewide vote collects all of the state's 55 electoral votes. That's the biggest electoral prize in the nation.
Under the rule change proposed in the initiative, California's electoral votes – unlike those of red states such as Texas and Florida – would be divvied up by congressional districts, with electoral votes awarded based on which candidate received the most votes in each of the state's congressional districts.
Given California's recent presidential election history, a Democrat is expected to win a majority of votes statewide and, thus, under current rules all 55 of the state's electoral votes. But if the initiative passes and is ruled constitutional, some 20 or so Republican-leaning congressional districts in California and their electoral...
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
so now it’s fine to disenfranchise millions of voters by not letting the proportional support go to candidates.
I didn’t sign in to read the full article but the chances of this getting on a ballot, and surviving constitutional challenges that would immediately be filed, before the next general election are almost nil. At best, it would work for the 2012 election. I personally think it’s a good idea. Half of California is basically disenfranchised when it comes to presidential elections, and we know it.
CA will never be taken seriously again as long as Republican Presidential Candidates realize that money spent there is wasted as the state will go Democrat anyway.
CA, the largest state in the Union has marginalized themselves anyway (The politicians there have) this measure would put CA back unto the National Stage as important.
That is a fact!
To most of the country, it doesn’t matter what happens to, or in, NY and CA.
They have regulated themselves to being a collection of nut balls in the minds of the heartland.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I guess it’s official, Democrat is now a one-word oxymoron.
Yep. It’ll survive constitutional challenges, since there are already two states that do apportionment and if the voters amend the charter, there’s not much the courts can do (i.e., Proposition 13).
I notice that a similar measure in Colorado is supported by Democrats. I for one am tired of my vote not counting. It will be interesting in this next election if Hillary doesn’t carry California if the Demorats in Sacto will resurrect this issue.
It is a horrible idea, because it further defaces what’s left of the Republic. This drags us further towards a true democracy.
Certainly it might serve to boost participation in districts that are perceived as marginal.
Apportionment is certainly legal. However, the Constitution specifically gives authority to the Legislatures of each state. What has not been decided is whether direct vote of the populace is the same as actions by the Legislature.
Until such a referendum is passed in California, there is NO reason for a Republican Presidential candidate to spend one thin dime campaigning there. Republican votes don’t matter in a Presidential race in CA, they haven’t since 1988. Sorry, guys.
The electoral vote by congressional district dosen’t sound so bad initially but if you think about it, whichever party controls congress is probably going to win the presidency as well.
Maine and Nebraska both follow this proposed rational system of choosing presidential electors and both have a reputation for running clean elections.
If this plan were adopted, California would once again become relevant in presidential politics. Right now, it is no more relevant than DC, just a lot bigger.
Perhaps they would be even less "disenfranchised" by going to the popular vote, by doing away with the electoral college, altogether.
Would you support that one?
Bump! (I agree)
True. I’m thinking that our initiative/referendum system has survivied other challenges re acting in place of the Legistlature, so I hope if it passes, it’ll work.
Of course, it won’t pass. If nothing else, the Moonbats will galvanize the illegal vote in L.A. and elsewhere to vote against it.
Shouldn’t mess with the Electoral college. It isn’t broken, just frustrating for the parties.
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.