Winner-take-all? Not necessarily (Calif. electoral vote initiative OK'd)

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

A GOP-backed initiative to toss out California's winner-take-all system of assigning electoral votes was approved for circulation Wednesday, and Democrats immediately slammed it as a backdoor attempt to hand Republicans the 2008 presidential election.

... The approval Wednesday by the secretary of state's and attorney general's offices means supporters can begin gathering signatures to qualify the initiative for the June ballot.

... "This is not reform," Howard Dean, head of the Democratic National Committee, charged in a conference call with California reporters. "It's just another Republican attempt to rig an election."

... So far, Hiltachk hasn't managed to collect endorsements from any big-name Republicans, either nationally or in California. Schwarzenegger, his former boss, dismissed the initiative in a Los Angeles television interview Wednesday.

"To me, what we have in place right now works," the governor said on KABC-TV. Changing the rules in the middle of the game "almost feels like a loser's mentality, saying 'I cannot win with those rules. So let me change the rules.' "

Read more: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/05/MNA6RVOC0.DTL&tsp=1

[lynnertic]

1. they're still gathering signatures, it's not on the ballot yet.

[pinto]

2. I don't think the Orange County (R) cabal will win this one.

[AlGore-08.com]

3. I'm not so sure. They will have a boatload of money and our side probably won't

The first poll they took on it, 41% of the Dems supported the idea, even after it was explained to them that it would help the GOP win the White House. (You only have to look at the primary situation in Florida and Michigan to see that the desire to play a more active roll can be a strong force.)

I think at the very least it will take a lot of money to defeat; money that would otherwise have been used to elect Democrats down ticket.

[McCamy Taylor]

5. Californians have a long history of acting crazy in elections.

And Republicans turn out in higher number in "off" elections than Democrats. This is just the kind of thing that will get all the GOP-nuts in full force. Better than a no-gay marriage amendment!

If they get the signatures, I am betting that California Democrats talk themselves into letting it slide on the theory "If we do it the red states will do it, too, because everyone wants to be like us, and then the president will be decided by the popular vote." Forgetting that the red states will never, ever give up the advantage that they have from the stranglehold they have on African-American voters all across the South. Just watch. There are probably people in California right now saying "We should be trend setters. As goes California, so goes the nation. Blah, blah."

Californians are nice, but sometimes they have the sense of fleas.

[pinto]

6. My take is that we've seen the danger of a minority proposition, i.e.

the recall and Arnold, to go this route again. I see your point, though. There's apt to be booko bucks touting this as fair representation, when all it is, is a pre-emptive strike to upset the electoral apple cart before anyone else catches up.

[mitchtv]

11. Ain't gonna happen

We didn't fall for the redsitricting texas style., last time, and we won't this time.Word will get out. They are through here

[krkaufman]

39. More active role?

The California initiative will diminish California's power in the Electoral College. There won't be much reason to hit California if only 4-6 Electoral Votes are in play.

[krkaufman]

38. Well, I wouldn't have thought the California public would have bought into ...

... Darrel Issa's b-s, either, and then elect Ahnuld.

An uneducated public cannot be underestimated.

[Book Lover]

4. 'I cannot win with those rules. So let me change the rules.'

You'd know about that, eh, Mister "I Couldn't Possibly Win In the General Against Davis, So Let's Have A Special Election, And In the Carnival Atmosphere I'll Bake Up A Win!"

Oh, I'm so glad the state apparatus repubs hate Arnie as much as I do.

[LibDemAlways]

7. Dems will have to get the message out that this

dilutes California's electoral clout and could cost the next Dem the Presidency. There isn't anything the repukes wouldn't do to win. This is a good example.

[krispos42]

8. It needs a rider on it

One that says it only become effective when the majority of other states have a substantially similar law.

Otherwise, it's splitting the California vote with no balance from Texas or Florida.

[cui bono]

9. But the GOP wrote it, so it won't have that. eom

[krispos42]

10. Well, we'd better get this done in Florida, too, then.

Funny, I don't see the Republicans all hot and bothered to get it done down there...

:shrug:

[bunkerbuster1]

12. Or in Texas.

It's going to take money and energy for us to defeat this thing, which sucks, but it has to be done.

I can't imagine that a truly informed CA public would vote to cut their own throats but, well, they did elect Gov. Swartzenasshole.

[DeepModem Mom]

13. Dean: The June vote would determine the next President. Bob Perry will finance this.

Sorry, but this is a doomsday scenario presented to us by filthy rich right-wingers, attempting to rig the system once again. I hope we can stop this.

[cobalt1999]

14. Doesn't sound like even the GOP is serious about this.

I doubt they'll fund the effort and this will die a quick death.

[The Stranger]

15. As usual, the Democrats are outmaneuvered and left with the only option: sounding indignant.

How did we let this happen? Is there some organization actively working to defeat it?

[slackmaster]

17. Right now California Democrats are in a mix of denial and confusion

Some are pushing for the National Popular Vote initiative, which doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell here.

Some are saying "We're in the majority here (which is not true), so it will never pass."

Many don't seem to have heard of it.

[Hawaii Hiker]

18. Everyone knows about this proposal by now, the Democrats

need to either spend the money to tie this f-ing thing up in court or defeat it...Or, start a proposal to split EV in several red states (MO, OH, TX, FL)...Can't sit by idle while Refucks steal yet another election...

I agree w/you in how the hell could Democrats let this happen...Unbelievable :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[slackmaster]

16. The most common objection to it I have heard from GOPers...

Democrats will retaliate by trying to introduce similar measures in red states like Texas.

[redqueen]

19. They're damn right we will. n/t

[Cant trust em]

20. WINNER-TAKE-ALL? NOT NECESSARILY

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

A GOP-backed initiative to toss out California's winner-take-all system of assigning electoral votes was approved for circulation Wednesday, and Democrats immediately slammed it as a backdoor attempt to hand Republicans the 2008 presidential election.

The initiative is a ticking time bomb for Democratic presidential hopes next year, which are pinned on winning all of the state's 55 electoral votes. The measure would award a single electoral vote to the presidential winner in each of the state's 53 congressional districts and two to the statewide victor.

The approval Wednesday by the secretary of state's and attorney general's offices means supporters can begin gathering signatures to qualify the initiative for the June ballot.

In 2004, Democrat John Kerry collected all of California's electoral votes, even though Republican President George W. Bush beat Kerry in 22 of the state's congressional districts. A 33-to-22 split in California electoral votes next year would give Republicans more electoral votes than they could get from winning Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21) or Ohio (20).


Read more: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/09/06/MNA6RVOC0.DTL

---

If we're going to do it in California we'd have to do it all over the country. A national election can't have part of the country doing it one way and part of the country doing it another. Or we could demolish the electoral college system entirely and count each person's vote individually. Then we wouldn't be stuck with GWB in the first place.

[Skink]

21. Maine already does that.

I think it would do a better job of representing California.

[Cant trust em]

24. Then shouldn't we do a better job of representing the U.S.?

Certainly there must have been some blue districts in Texas, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, etc. You can't split the vote up in one state, but not in others. This is a national election after all.

[liberal N proud]

28. Actually, it is not considered a national election

It is considered 50 separate elections. The candidates must qualify for the ballot in each and every state separately even though they declare they are running for office.
Election laws are state by state, right or wrong.

[Cant trust em]

33. A state by state election that has nationally unifying consequences

Each state can elect their statewide representatives in whatever way they choose. But if we (Californians, Texans, New Yorkers) are going to be asked to vote for a commonly held candidate then we should all be counted in the same way.

[ProudDad]

30. Not hardly

"This method divides electoral votes by district, allocating one vote to each district and using the remaining two as a bonus for the statewide popular vote winner. This method of distribution has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither state has had a statewide winner that has not swept all of the Congressional districts as well. Consequently, neither state has ever spilt its electoral votes.

This system does not address the disproportional aspects of the Electoral College. Using Congressional districts to determine each elector would also draw more attention to the way districts are drawn, already a hot-topic in politics today. The vast majority of districts are drawn as “safe zones” for one of the two major political parties. For this reason, basing electoral vote allocation on Congressional districts as well would raise the stakes of redistricting considerably and make gerrymandering even more tempting."

FINE, Maine and Nebraska -- VERY homogeneous states -- can cut their own throats if they wish...although they obviously realize that it makes no difference to the electoral votes from their states...

"NEITHER STATE HAS EVER SPLIT ITS ELECTORAL VOTES"

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm

-----------------

What we really need is NATIONAL proportional representation and Instant Run-Off voting.


This initiative is PURELY a device by the republicans to grab 22 electoral votes in '08... and is unfair if the rest of the country isn't also doing it...

It hasn't been submitted for qualification yet.

CALIFORNIANS!!!! Don't sign this piece of shit!!!!

Mo matter how sorry you may feel for the paid signature gatherer -- DON'T SIGN IT...

[Captain Hilts]

22. Well, in some states ex-felons can vote, in others, not. Equal protection clause is violated all...

the time when it comes to voting.

How can states decide who'll vote in a FEDERAL election?

[ProudDad]

31. That's an argument for a NATIONAL prohibition

on removing "ex-felons" from the roles...

All citizens of the United States should be allowed to vote...no exceptions!!!

It's unconstitutional but that doesn't matter in the U.S. of A. when the unconstitutional activity is directed against a "despised" minority.

[Trillo]

23. I agree

"If we're going to do it in California we'd have to do it all over the country."

[datadiva]

25. If this damn thing passes we will have a repub president

This is a power grab for the republicans. If it's only done here and nowhere else, they will win hands down. It must not be allowed to happen.

[Hydra]

26. Ya

let's do it everywhere- my vote would count then(unless it runs afoul of diebold)

[Geoff R. Casavant]

27. You know, for 2008 I'm pretty copacetic with this:

Slimy and underhanded, to be sure, but bear with me.

We know Bush isn't going to do anything about Iraq on his watch, so it's pretty much going to get handed to the next person in the office, and any withdrawal, voluntary or by necessity, means that person's party will bear the shame of having "lost" Iraq from all the mouth-breathers out there.

If it's going to happen that way in any event, I for one would prefer it happen when a Republican is in the Oval Office. Especially since the Democrats still look to make significant gains in both houses of Congress despite any California shenanigans. Should be enough to make the Republican brand even more radioactive in 2010 and beyond.

[ProudDad]

32. The major problem with that logic

is SCOTUS...

[Geoff R. Casavant]

35. Nah, I took that into account --

The present Democratic majority should (in theory, but the present leadership still has no spines) prevent the wingnuts from getting a hearing, much less confirmation. I figure the expanded majority after 2008 can only help.

[ProudDad]

37. Maybe

but the Dems were "in charge" when thomas and scalia and renquist and kennedy were confirmed...

[TexasBushwhacker]

29. My thoughts exactly

"If we're going to do it in California we'd have to do it all over the country. A national election can't have part of the country doing it one way and part of the country doing it another. Or we could demolish the electoral college system entirely and count each person's vote individually."

If they want to essentially do away with the electoral college, they should do away with it everywhere.

[dansolo]

36. I don't like awarding based on each district winner

The electoral votes should be split based on the popular vote in the state. I don't want to see the electoral votes mirroring the congressional voting. This will only further encourage gerrymandering and the crap that Tom Delay pulled in Texas.

[KamaAina]

34. Article the Second, Section I.

even repukes like Craig are starting to rediscover the Constitution...

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

Doesn't say anything in there about a ballot initiative. Sounds like the (Dem-controlled) CA Assembly would have to pass this. Or at least it would if SCOTUS weren't a Bushie/repuke rubber stamp...

[Divine Discontent]

40. if that is done, the supreme court should have to hear a case against it

and declare it unconstitutional unless all states districts electoral vote each get counted towards the candidate who got the most legal votes in the district! Duh... right?

[habitual]

41. do you scare me you frightened repubs????

NO, you are sore losers, and i spit on your losses.!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA