On August 16, leaders of the California Democratic Party announced a new organization to fight a proposed ballot initiative that would let each U.S. House district elect its own presidential elector in California. The new organization is headed by the state’s two Democratic U.S. Senators, the Mayors of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and Democratic state legislative leaders. See its webpage at www.fairelectionreform.com. An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on August 16 is critical of the proposed initiative. The Wall Street Journal supports the existing electoral college system, and the op-ed says that the proposed Republican initiative will merely play into the hands of the National Popular Vote Plan. Thanks to Jack Dean for this news.
We said it a hundred times: Democans and Republicrats are not identical twins, but they sure are ‘kissing kousins!’
A pox on both of their houses!
Unless Mmes Feinstein and Boxer actually propose a constitutional ammendment to facilitate the popular vote, their charge of a Republican power-grab will just as easily be thrown back as a Democratic power-cling.
I for one believe the GOP can pull this off – If they campaign HARD in the inland districts with a message of making their votes actually count. We’d do well to recall the dems threw all kinds of anti-democratic rhetoric at the recall as well.
Except that the Democratic Party is firmly in control in California, and is in charge of all of the major population centers. The only anomaly here is that California has a goofy habit of electing Republican governors, although the current Republican governor is arguably only in office because of his celebrity stature.
Still, I wonder if the Republican turnout might be much better should more folks outside the DP believe the tide could turn, even if that outlook was hopelessly optimistic.
I’m a third-party-type person, but one who roots for Democrats to win elections; I do NOT want to see a Republican take over from George W. Bush in 2009.
That said, I am still 100% in favor of assigning electoral votes by congressional district. I think it is ludicrous to award a state’s entire slate of electors as the prize for getting 50.5 percent of the popular votes.
North Carolina, with 15 votes, may be on the verge of adopting this plan. That would mean that the Republican candidate may not have a lock on all its votes in 2008, as would be the case under the winner-take-all approach. Republicans there are calling it a Democratic power grab. When I heard about this, I immediately wrote my rep in the Massachusetts legislature suggesting that Massachusetts follow NC’s lead; I’m willing to see a few of my state’s votes go to the Republicans if NC is willing to let a few of its go to the Dems.
Conventional wisdom is that the Dems have an excellent chance of winning the White House in ’08. I understand that that could change if enough states split their electoral votes (or even if only California did). But I use the shoe-on-the-other-foot test; this method of allocating electors could just as well swing the election to the Dems in a year when the GOP might seem to have a lock on the election under winner-take-all. Will people that oppose this now, when the Democratic party seems to have edge, change their tunes in 2012 if the situation is reversed?
Oh are you the one whom followed us day after day in 2004? You spent your time and energy shouting down Nader’s Raiders, and blaming us for every thing ‘wrong’ since the last visit of Attita the Hun?
[This in a state where ‘Demo Bunnies’ win all electorial units every four years. Plz explain why a million California voters (under the current Undemocratic system) should logically NOT ‘send a message’ with an anti establish enfranchisement? Duh?]
Plz call (619) 420–0209 any time!
Plz bring logic with you!
Also, explain how Hilary’s ‘voting for war’ is the action of a ‘Peace Candidate’! Kinda like ‘screwing for chastity’ isn’t it?
Why is assigning electoral votes by congressional district any fairer than awarding them statewide? All you’re doing is pushing the winner-take-all nonsense down one level. It would still be winner-take-all at the CD level. And because of the gerrymandered incumbent protection plan that prevails in CD’s in every state, you would see uncompetitive districts awarding electoral votes with results like 75/25, 80/20, etc. all over the map. That’s a democracy?
Seems to me the only fair way, particularly to people like us who support 3rd parties, to award electoral votes is to use some sort of proportional system (hard to do when there are only a handful to be awarded in some states, admittedly).
Essentially this is all a provisional way of dealing with an archaic system that, frankly, needs to be scrapped in favor of direct election of the president.
This might just be the most corrupt thing I’ve ever heard…Yeah, let’s make LA County (population 8 million) worth one point like some Republican County near Pelican Bay (population 10,000) worth one point to….
This proposal by this corrupt Sacramento REPUBLICAN lawyer wreaks of sour grapes….You can spin & sugar coat his proposal any way you wish – it’s nothing but a way to rig an election – period, done, end of story….Republicans know they’ll lose CA. in 2008, so all this ls left is conjuring up a way to steal an election…
Even if Democrats have to spend millions of dollars, I expect this insane proposal to be defeated….Both senators have spoken out against it, as have LA’s & SF’s mayors….Plus Hollywood money is gearing up to help defeat it….
You can’t piecemail the electoral college..Either split EV in every state or none at all…Yeah, yeah, I know, Maine & Nebraska split their votes…There are only 9 votes between them & they’ve never been split anyway…
Republicans would scream & cry foul if Democrats tried to split EV in Ohio, Florida, Texas….
People complain about LA & San Francisco deciding who wins CA’s electoral votes, well, that’s for good reason – THAT’S WHERE ALL THE PEOPLE LIVE!!!….
As the proponent of Initiatve 07-0016 Electoral Reform California I find it laughable that the Demorats are shaking in their boots. They love to reform the other guy but when its their turn to get screwed they scream bloody murder.
The opposition to the Reform of the Electoral College is becoming hysterical. A special interest organization, all demorats has put aside $40 million to defeat this reform initiative.
Whazzz Up!! Is it that
the demorats smell defeat in Nov. 2008 if it passes on June 3, 2008 and it will!
The reform of the Electoral College in California has caught the attention of the presidential candidates, the Republican and Democrat parties, and the major media.
Numerous articles have been reported in New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, and many more. Michael R. Blood of the Associated Press has filed two definitive reports on the effort to Reform the Electoral College in California.
Website:ElectoralReformCalifornia.com
Why the Reform is a really good idea!
Returns the power of the vote back to the people
It reinforces our founding fathers concept of representative government.
Presidential candidates will not ignore California like they did in 2000 and 2004.
California will become a competitive market in the Presidential race forcing candidates to campaign in this great state.
$100,000,000! Thats right, one hundred million will be spent in California in media purchases.
Grass roots political issues will become involved in the election.
Independents votes will matter.
Rural voters will have a voice.
California will reflect its political demography.
It enhances the importance of swing voters and competitive districts.
It is the most fair system possible.
In response to Rich (post #8)… these are DISTRICTS, not COUNTIES!! Districts are divided up to have the same population numbnuts!! You’re just another idiot, uninformed, whiny California democrat. How is this corrupt at all? And last time I checked, there’s no such thing as a “stolen” election. Let me get this straight, you cockbag: you complain because Bush won the 2000 election because of the electoral college, but now you are fighting tooth-and-nail to keep the system the way it is? Nice.
Good post by Tony (#9).
Poster #10 (TC) sounds like the Great Santini, just another angry Republican DOPE looking for a fight…
I didn’t say anything about the 2000 election you stupid ass….
“This proposal will not make the California any more competitive “Just look at the 2006 election. In 2006, only 2 of California’s 53 Congressional districts were truly in play. In the remaining 51 districts, the margin of victory for the winning Republican or Democratic House candidate was always more than 6% — and in most cases, the difference was 20 or 30 percentage points or more. The number of competitive districts in the 2008 election will not be much different than what we saw in 2004″…
Again, how would Republicans act if Democrats tried to split votes in Ohio, Florida, & Texas….They’d fight it tooth & nail…
You can’t take the state with the most electoral votes, & not reform the other 49 states…The reason this proposal is getting so much press is that it is so blatant & very easy to see the ulterior motives in it…
Another thing, why such a rush to change the eletoral vote by 2008…Maybe, just maybe, all the other states could get involved & by the 2012 election, EVERY state could split their electoral votes…Plus, there will be electoral vote adjustments based on the 2010 census – that is the fair thing to do…
Republicans are so fearful of losing in 2008 that they want to cherry pick a big blue state for their own gain….
Here’s another take on this awful proposal:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/08/06/070806taco_talk_hertzberg