Posted on 08/05/2007 1:41:34 AM PDT by goldstategop
Democrats are growing anxious about a state initiative filed last month by a prominent Republican attorney to change the way California assigns its presidential electors, even though the proposal has no discernible financial backers yet.
Rather than assign all of California's 55 electoral votes to one candidate under the current winner-take-all system, the initiative would split the nation's largest electoral bounty between two or more candidates.
Filed by GOP lawyer Thomas Hiltachk, it would give a presidential candidate one electoral vote for each congressional district he or she wins in California, plus two additional votes to whomever wins a plurality statewide. If it qualifies, it would appear on the June 2008 ballot and take effect in next year's presidential contest.
That could spell disaster for Democrats and be a significant boon to Republicans in a state the GOP hasn't won since 1988. If the proposed system had been in place in 2004, President Bush would have received 22 electoral votes from California rather than none
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
"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
Although sounds good for conservatives now. How long until the proposal spreads across the country. I am not sure if I like this. Besides this will be null and void once the Democrats decide to use the popular vote instead of the electoral college.
"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
Under these scenarios across the country, the Republicans do better in all the cases for which I have seen it calculated. That is a good reason to expect it will not fly.
"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
"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 agree.
I have been a big fan of this system for several years.
It would give Republicans a big boost in several states which Democrats almost always win because of huge majorities in limited big city areas: New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Washington and Pennsylvania come to mind.
On the other hand, while Democrats would undoubtedly pick off some electors in generally Republican states like Florida and Texas, the effect would not be as exaggerated. This is because Republican strength is more diffuse in most Republican states, especially in the midwest and mountain states.
This plan is a huge net gain for Republicans and conservatives generally, and would force the Democrats to tear down their “psychiatric wing” if they want to ever be elected to any nationwide office ever again.
"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
Given events this week in the House, apparently the MSM agrees.
Who would have thought that? < /sarcasm>
I’m not for this at all. The Electoral College is there for a reason. I do not want to circumvent it.
If we want to fix the problem with California losing all it’s Electoral Votes to the Democrats, then we need to replace the RP leadership in the state, get bonified lucid conservatives on the ballots and back them from the top down.
It’s our leadership’s fault we aren’t giving 55 electoral votes each presidential election year. They don’t support conservatism. And thus conservatism fails here.
By splitting up the vote, we’d only be shoring up the bogus RP leadership in the state. If they wouldn’t lose the whole pie, they wouldn’t care as much. Frankly, they don’t seem to give a damn as it is.
California has been jetesoned into the forbidden zone by state and federal Republican leadership. And to add insult to injury, the mother-f-—ers still have the b—ls to call me and ask for money.
Nope, if they want our Electoral Votes, let them get off their asses and help out in our state. Otherwise they can whiz up-wind for all I care.
“... Democrats would become competitive in the Deep South again...”
This seems a bit over optimistic. Win a few yes. Competitive? Hardly. NC,VA,maybe TX but where else? If this means the rat wins SOMETHING in every Southern State, well yes. But “competitive” should be more than 25%.
The intent of the ‘california plan’ is simple: It would break the iron grip of large [usually liberal] cities on any state’s electroal votes, allowing voters in suburban and rural areas of the state to actually have a say in who gets them. For generations, the strategy of the dems has been simple... win big in big cities where their base [labor, minorities, gays, etc] is concentrated in large numbers and, voila!, they win ALL the state’s electoral votes. In 2004, geographically, Bush carried California except in LA, SF, Berkely and San Diego. In Pennsylvania, one need only carry Philadelphia and Pittsburg to win it all. And, of course, there is New York City.... Interestingly, the Constitution is silent on HOW states must apportion their electoral votes.
lib/dems will only back something that will 100% stack the deck in their favor...any potential of actual populus representation or fairness....will be voted down in a ny minute!!!
speaking of which (NY)....Go A-Rod...at least your accomplishment was done without chemical enhancement!!!!
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Therefore this does not circumvent the Constitution.
However, enacting it via a statewide initiative measure arguably does violate the Constitution. This power is reserved to the Legislature of each state.
John Kerry got more than 40% of the vote in every state of the Old Confederacy, save two - where he got 38% and 37%.
In six deep South states, he got more than 42%, and in three, he got more than 45%.
I would say that the RATs are "competitive" by your definition all over the deep South.
An interesting question for the legislators: if this initiative passes, do they sue on this basis to nullify it and risk the wrath of the the people at the next election?
On the other hand the Founding Fathers most emphatically did not like the idea of just letting the people vote on such matters. That's why they came up with a representative republic and not a democracy.
As a Constitutionalist I will have to think carefully about the implications of this point, because right now I'm undecided.
No, because the Constitution guarantees to each State a Republican form of government.
The District Election Formula (already used in Maine and Nebraska) would bring the election process back to the original intent of the Founders. The Winner-Take-All formula was a method devised by the larger states to increase their power, in contravention of the whole purpose of the Electoral College.
Republican may mean simply non-monarchical or non-dictatorial in this context. I’m pretty sure the Founding Fathers did not intend the Federal Government to impose its own idea of the proper organization of state government on the states.
But again, something to think about.
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.