LA Times omits info. from the CA. electoral vote initiative story

[Hawaii Hiker]

I guess since LA Times was purchased by the Tribune Co., they are becoming a right-wing rag.....No excuse to fuck up this story especially w/the significance it has....

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712030004?f=h_latest

"Summary: The Los Angeles Times reported that supporters of a controversial Republican-backed California ballot initiative that would award the state's electoral votes by congressional district portray the proposal "as a way to make California's elections fair." But the article did not mention opponents' argument that the measure would not "make California's elections fair." Further, the article did not note that several of the key initiative supporters it named are prominent Republicans, or that the initiative was endorsed by the party's state convention".

[bluestateguy]

1. There is a very reasonable non-partisan reason for opposing this measure

It dilutes California's political clout. All the other states, save for tiny Maine and arch-Republican Nebraska, award their electoral college votes on a winner take all basis. Hence this measure weakens California's political weight in the presidential election.

Contrary to the arguments of this measure's supporters, it would not result in more California campaigning by the candidates. All but one or two of the congressional districts are nicely gerrymandered and produce lopsided results in presidential races. A candidate is not going to blow 1 million dollars on ads in the LA media market to target one or two electoral votes in a swing district.

To Democratic partisans however, the argument should be that this measure is a Republican power grab that would give Republicans the White House.

[Elspeth]

2. Wish I could recommend your post

:kick:

[AndyTiedye]

3. We Can Expect the Full Force of the Repiglickin' Media to Be Pushing for This

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. The real irony is that after the 2000 election, such a move was openly considered by Dems

If such a measure were being proposed in Texas or North Carolina -- or any state where pockets of blue are routinely washed away by the state's sea of red -- Democrats would be wetting themselves in denouncing the "all or nothing" apportionment of the state's electoral votes and crying in rhapodies of joy about how such a change furthers the ideals of democracy and enfranchises voters who up until then had been routinely dismissed as irrelevant.

Ah, the smell of hypocricy.

[bluestateguy]

5. If all 50 states did it, I might support it

But if one state does it and 47 others do not, then clearly one party will be disadvantaged. If only one state does it then that state is choosing to dilute its political clout.

[caligirl]

6. Repigs would never allow this in Texas or Florida by dems, for fairness sake.